> The basic idea is to offer a paid commercial license for people who don't want to use GPLed code.

This business model is known as selling exceptions to the GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

Use the most radically copyleft and freedom preserving license you can. If the corporations want your software, you present a business solution: pay for special licensing conditions.

It's even blessed by Stallman. I emailed him to confirm. Unlike permissive licenses, only the original copyright holders get to benefit in this way. Others don't have this relicensing permission. The damage is contained.

I hope it works out for him. Watching beggar barons make billions off of free software that's being maintained for free is really hard to watch.

https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/

▲

bayindirh 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Personally what he's doing is very sensible, and how I personally advocate. Hope it works out for him.

I personally like the slow and steady tide of understanding the value of GPL family of licenses.

▲

zamalek 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My friend sent me that article a few months ago. It _completely_ changed my approach to OSS contribution: from a 25yr MIT/BSD adherent to AGPL adherent in 30min.

	▲	matheusmoreira 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		It was very influential for me too. Here's another one, also from Zed Shaw: https://web.archive.org/web/20120620103603/http://zedshaw.co... > Why I (A/L)GPL > Open source to open source, corporation to corporation. > If you do open source, you’re my hero and I support you. > If you’re a corporation, let’s talk business. > I want people to appreciate the work I’ve done and the value of what I’ve made. > Not pass on by waving “sucker” as they drive their fancy cars.

▲

ducktective 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So if one wants to open-source his project and sell it :

- Licence as AGPL

- Mention that commercial use (without having to open source the derivative work) is available

Did I get it right?

1- Is this solution useful for subscription-based contract too?

2- Does it make a difference if the product is a app, library or hardware device?

▲

matheusmoreira 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Did I get it right?

I think so.

> 1- Is this solution useful for subscription-based contract too?

If you mean SaaS, then maybe. I emailed Stallman about the ethics of the SaaS case and he said it's a net good.

You might want to think about whether the license actually gives you leverage in that case though. You might find that the corporations are perfectly willing to host a service using your AGPLv3 software. That's within their rights.

You only gain leverage if they want to create a proprietary version of your software.

> 2- Does it make a difference if the product is a app, library or hardware device?

Absolutely. The GPL has very specific wording with regards to linking and distribution which trigger license conditions. You should read the full license for a better understanding.

Hardware is a completely different matter, I won't even pretend to know anything about how licensing works in that case.

Remember, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a hobbyist free software developer who's also trying his best to understand all this and make the best possible decision.

▲

tobias3 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The main problem is that you need to have contributors sign a copyright assignment/CLA, otherwise their code is going to be AGPL only and you cannot license it commercially.

Or you don't have any contributors, which is the base case, I guess.

▲

rcxdude 3 days ago | parent [-]

And, you'll trigger the same response in potential contributors: There's a generally anti-CLA attitude in open-source/free software circles because it means if you contribute your contributions can be used to enrich someone else.

	▲	matheusmoreira 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		One could write patches and refuse to sign the CLA. The maintainer would be unable to incorporate those patches into the repository without losing the ability to relicense. Maybe it would be useful to reframe the CLA as the price of centralized maintenance. It's free software so it's perfectly possible to refuse to sign the CLA, modify the software regardless and even publish the changes. It just means the software must be forked and maintained separately.