[happymellon]

> We are also unsure if we should use an Apache / MIT license...

It is unlikely that you want an Apache/MIT license. That would allow your customers to take your source, add proprietary extensions and close it up without paying you.

You probably want GPL/AGPL with a proprietary option, so the choice for companies is it's free but you have to give everything you do back to us, or pay to keep it secret.

But I would consult a lawyer rather than engineers.

[AntDes]

The issue with the GPL/AGPL is that it would be incompatible with a “commons” clause.

"The GPL explicitly states that "no further restrictions" can be added to the license terms. The Commons Clause, by restricting commercial redistribution, would be considered an additional restriction, violating the terms of the GPL."

[happymellon]

I've not talked about adding additional restrictions to the license, they can commercially redistribute but they would have to also share their changes.

Or don't get the GPL'ed version and then you are not bound by the GPL but it will cost you.

Unless you don't want them being able to redistribute the free version, in which case neither GPL or MIT is what you want as you don't want to OpenSource it.

[AntDes]

This is useful, thank you!