Obviously, the closer to AGPL, the better, in my opinion. But I’ll run some MIT, if the product is sufficiently better, for my use case, than the alternative. For example, I want a multilibrary photo album. Photoprism (AGPL) doesn’t offer it, but Immich (MIT) does. As soon as Photoprism has that functionality, I’ll switch back simply for the license.

My hard line is open source. I don’t use any proprietary solutions.

  • recursive_recursion [they/them]English
    3•11 months ago

    My hard line is open source. I don’t use any proprietary solutions.

    fully with you on that point

    I feel it kinda depends on the tool, for Linux distro related I personally want GPLv2.0 as it’s more likely to be supported longterm and might potentially be integrated into the Linux kernel due to license compatibility.

    For tools that are new or have niche uses I prefer either Apache2.0 or MIT.

    also just had a random thought:
    does variety(differing license types) matter when it comes to the kind of thing someone is trying to create?

    • like is there a theoretical optimal license for certain things?
    • could a one-size-fits-all license possibly exist?
    • @sarsaparilyptusEnglish
      2•11 months ago
      • like is there a theoretical optimal license for certain things?
      • could a one-size-fits-all license possibly exist?

      I assume “public domain” isn’t the answer you’re looking for

  • The DoctorEnglish
    2•11 months ago

    Using? Pretty much all of my possible use cases are covered by open source software.

    Writing for the community? GPLv3 for legal reasons.

    • Tygrys
      1•11 months ago

      @drwho @butter I am curious about the legal reasons. Can you elaborate?

      I write server side software, so GPL is easy to go around for companies, therefore I use AGPL for all my software.