[gmontard]

Absolutely!

We wanted to find a good balance with a license to allow any team to use it for their own usage no strings attached and at the same time protect us against a big vendor tempted to package our work under their product without us getting a dime... Unfortunately, it happens in this world :(

[eltondegeneres]

AGPLv3 would ensure any changes by a big vendor would remain freely licensed. The current license for this project fails to meet the Open Source Definition (Criteria 6: No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) since it restricts offering Bearer as a managed service.

[gmontard]

That's right, we don't want to have someone doing managed service on top of us without a getting a license (or just an agreement). Basically, it's the AWS vs Elastic case, that resulted in this license.

Happy to revisit the license in the future when we feel more protected, but for now, we've seen so much bad behaviors in this industry with big vendors taking advantages of small companies like ours.

[UncleEntity]

> …we've seen so much bad behaviors in this industry with big vendors taking advantages of small companies like ours.

Firstly, I have absolutely no problem with your choice of license so don’t take this as a criticism of your project.

What I do take issue with is people releasing software under a “free” license and then complaining about people taking them up on their offer. This isn’t “taking advantage”, this is taking what they are freely giving.

[gmontard]

Not taken, just wanted to give the context of why this license.

[mrtweetyhack]

nothing wrong with this license. Don't like it, then don't use it. I don't needs somebody to tell me how OSS is defined or yours.