Why did you choose AGPL license?
leopd opened this issue · 4 comments
This seems like a useful little package. But no way I'm going to use it with the AGPL license.
I agree(I learnt that it basically asks you to have your project open source also, right?), this was one of my first projects and I still to date don't know how should I licence my packages. If you don't mind me asking, can you change the licence just like that? And if so, do you have licence suggestion that I should go with for projects small-sized like this one?
I myself use the MIT License for such project.
Technically, you need everybody who contributed on your project to agree to change the license. As far as I know, i'm the only other contributor, and you can do whatever you like.
Well, that actually sounds lovely, I'll change the licence to either MIT or something like that first chance I get and close this issue with the commit. Thanks for the input guys!
That would be great, thanks!
Super quick summary from my experience (I'm not a lawyer) - AGPL is aggressively designed to force companies to share their code open source. GPL was designed to do that too, but there's a giant loophole for server-side software; so AGPL closes that loop-hole. MIT & BSD are super neutral licenses - do what you want, don't bother the authors. Most businesses are perfectly happy to use MIT & BSD code. Apache is the most business friendly, explicitly granting patent rights and such.