Yes. The clean way is to use the strongest copyleft license you can find, probably AGPL. Even if corporations are technically allowed to use it, they don't want to risk touching it with a three-meter pole. Then you offer to sell them a different license. Hobbyists and OSS folks usually have no issue with AGPL.

▲

knorker 2 days ago | parent [-]

Do you have data on that last bit, or just a guess? As a hobbyist and OSS developer I treat AGPL as a rabies infected animal. I may have uses for it, but I'll keep it EXTREMELY segregated from everything else.

▲

pocksuppet a day ago | parent | next [-]

If you don't want to give people downstream of you my source code, I'm happy to sell you a commercial license.

	▲	knorker a day ago \| parent [-]
		This means you have only solved the problem for large companies, and specifically those who have money and who have a functioning procurement system that's developer-driven. Which is a very narrow use case. Also relevant comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49596403

▲

nine_k 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But that's the whole point of dual AGPL + commercial licensing.

	▲	knorker a day ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but for anything except large companies it has a bootstrapping problem. I'm absolutely not going to use AGPL software in a test one-person trying to sell a service kind of deal. So if it takes off, I'm already on a non-AGPL stack, so why reach out at that point to get a commercial license for software I don't even use? And hell, even without money involved, I'm not going to make a hobby project with AGPL software either. Not only may I have small parts of the project I've not opensourced, but AGPL is untested in how far the virality goes. Are my backup cronjobs in scope? I certainly don't want to be the test case for this. Even if I win against an AGPL troll, I'll still lose.