[ratmice]

> Proprietary use, commercial redistribution, or publishing modified versions with ads or tracking is strictly prohibited under GPLv3 or later.

These all sound to me like "Further restrictions" which the GPL says:

> If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

It seems like if you want those clauses that GPL doesn't seem like the license you want?

[nativeforks]

The reason I included that note is that, as an open-source developer, I’ve seen many projects that weren’t actively maintained get picked up by bad actors as they modify the code and publish it on Google Play with ads or IAPs. I wanted to discourage that.

Other than this notice, MBCompass is fully licensed under GPLv3 or later.

[ratmice]

The sum of the note and the gpl doesn't behave as though the notice has any precedence over the gpl. It behaves as additional restrictions and a license that allows you to ignore the additional restrictions. I'm no lawyer but it seems like it isn't achieving what you want.

[throwaway290]

But you publish it on github? Anybody can simply ask copilot to make the same app as yours and be completely not bound by any license.

[jasonvorhe]

Maybe look into dual licensing. You could allow all free use but require a custom license fee for all commercial use.

[nativeforks]

>Maybe look into dual licensing.

No, no, not at all as a FOSS developer.

> I’m planning a non-intrusive in-app prompt to remind users about donations something subtle, because many users forget once they start using the app, rather than only seeing the donation info in the README.

As I mentioned previously, the above approach seems to be well enough and good.