[OJFord]

But I suppose I'm saying I don't think they have that arseholish manner - they are simply replicating it because it is available.

I.e. if you don't like it the solution is not AGPL or source available but no reuse allowrd or whatever, it's closed source.

[LamaOfRuin]

The author spells out that they absolutely don't want it closed source. They do want the common requirements of copyleft licences, so it seems that the solution is one of those.

The author also thinks the people they're upset about are jerks, even though they fully acknowledge they have the right to be. They're fairly clear about that. And even if they continued to be jerks, the author would be happier if the license they had chosen required them to be slightly less jerkish.

[OJFord]

I know, what I mean is that I think if you want it to be source available at all (not even 'Open Source' necessarily) you have to accept that this is going to happen.

(Or at least could, and the more it sounds like a small helper lib / WordPress plugin type thing the more likely. As much as some dislike it, this is a big selling point of GitHub and its stars etc. OP's things sound like something I'd find on Sourceforge, and not really be able to work out if it was original or not.)

[gtirloni]

Exactly. If you don't agree with the OSS terms, don't license your code with an OSS license. OSS is not the default answer because there's no default answer. You have to think about what you want to achieve and license accordingly. Even then, there will be bad actors who don't care about you suing them, that will happen with any license (OSS or not).

It pains me to say this because I started in a proprietary software world early in my career and I hate it for 99% of the use cases but... proprietary licenses do have a place.