[wavemode]

> Of course anyone's allowed to license their project any way they see fit, but they'll have to call it something other than open source and accept the limited distribution and userbase they'll see as a result.

This doesn't require abandoning open source. The GPL and AGPL serve precisely the purpose of preventing open-source software from being exploited for closed-source purposes.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20, so this doesn't help maintainers who have already chosen a permissive license and don't want to rugpull their users. But to say solving this problem requires adopting a non-open-source license is not correct.

Another option is dual-licensing - GPL/AGPL for all, or a permissive license that can be purchased for a fee.

[ndiddy]

I was specifically talking about the people saying that the corporate users should be required by the license to provide compensation or assistance to the project. You're right that licensing as GPLv3 or AGPL generally limits corporate use of open source, and that selling license exemptions is a good way to let everybody win (although it means you'll have to either not accept contributions or make all your contributors sign a CLA).