Make sure that your software is released under the GPL at some point.
Even if it's not right away, make sure that after initial profits are made, that the software becomes licensed under the GPL.
Make sure that your software is released under the GPL at some point.
Even if it's not right away, make sure that after initial profits are made, that the software becomes licensed under the GPL.
Today GPL is not very good, one should use AGPL as much as possible.
We like MIT more, but always open source.
Why do you like MIT more?
The GPL is "weaponized", in such a way that a person cannot use code from a GPL program without making their own program GPL.
This allows more code to become open source. People cannot take without giving back.
Because I like giving people the freedom to do what they want with the software. GPL carries a copyleft and it bundles a particular philosophy. I'm a bit more libertarian. It also allows for profit firms that want to extend the software for their own products to collaborate on the main codebase.
This is a really old fight since the days of Stallman.
Hmm, I do see your side of it.
I'm rather neutral, with only a light favoring towards the GPL. I suppose that you need to do what works for you. Software should be fun to write. It's wizardry.
Not a political tool. Or at least it shouldn't be.
That's precisely why most of my code (including piston, python-graphene and python-steem) are MIT licensed.
Here's a nice presentation to watch on the topic: