[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

May be. Most companies already hate agpl so I figure you could solve some of the freeloader problem by dual licensing agpl and proprietary sorta like Qt does.

He's proposing what sounds like Qt but instead of an app framework led by one company it'd be a huge collection of anything useful from a variety of parties, and developers would be compensated in proportion to usage, somehow.

[jgeada]

Largely they hate agpl because it doesn't enable them to parasite off the work of others for free.

[seanhunter]

Can't speak in general (and I'm doubtful you can either) but at the big corporate where I currently work we recently opensourced some stuff.

We (the dev team) were suggesting the AGPL but when we got advice from outside counsel[1] they strongly recommended Apache 2 or MIT because of technical legal stuff to do with how the license is drafted. The concern wasn't due to any sort of GPL "virality" type concerns it was to do with the wording of all the linking and "conveying"/distribution stuff which they felt wasn't drafted very well and might be weak if we later tried to pursue someone who was violating the license.

[1] From one of the most reputable big law firms in the US specializing in IP issues

[sp332]

Yes, that's why it's useful to drive commercial uses to the paid license.

[yarekt]

Idk, as a software developer, the process of looking for a library is basically if it’s not MIT, it’s just easier to do it yourself. not even worth spending time integrating to later rewrite. Imo I’d even release our own stuff as MIT just because otherwise it won’t get used.

I do agree that the state of open source is poor, despite it being basically the reason internet exists as it does. I really think we need a modern model that accounts for how masses of people behave in our current work environment.

(EDIT: to clarify, all this is mostly around other contractual issues)