Software License: MIT or AGPLv3 - FOSS 😋

[CEO of Pickles]

Which software license is the best choice for my needs of scaring the hoes?

 

[A Cat in a Minefield]

Lmao

_What if someone removes the modifier?_
Cancel them on Twitter for using code derived from heresy.

 

[Just A Fat Round Bird]

Use one like @CrunkLord420's, and I quote:

Copyright 2021 CrunkLord420

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the word "NIGGER" shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

 

[CrunkLord420]

I personally like MIT for permissive because you only have to write your name down once where with the BSD license you need to write it down 5(!) times. Insanity.

AGPL-3.0-only for copyleft. I don't see any reason to use GPL instead of AGPL unless you wanna kowtow to corpos like Google (which I do not). The era of WASM and gigacloud there is little distinction between a desktop software application and something server-based. Imagine getting license-cucked because someone is running your GPL code behind a thin-client or something.

3.0-only because RMS will die and 3.0-forward-compatible includes a CLA license to GPLv4 which is just a massive counter-party risk. Globohomos will subvert FSF on a long enough time line, especially after RMS dies.

If I'm writing something small, a library, or gamedev related I'll often lean towards permissive license. I use copyleft for end-user software or anything I consider to have corporate value (fuck corpos).

+NIGGER for art and political dissident material, of course.

 

[gagabobo1997]

BSD is my fav. Copyleft is cool but also for trannies

 

[CEO of Pickles]

Use one like @CrunkLord420's, and I quote:

That is the MIT+NIGGER License, but Crunk is known for using both licenses, especially with Kiwi related projects that contains derivative GPLv2 code.

# Dual License Notice

This codebase uses portions of vkQuake which is GPLv2.0-or-later. I am licensing this code and my derivative work under AGPL-3.0-only+NIGGER. The rest of the codebase is dual licensed under MIT+NIGGER. I have tried my best to contain the GPL code within the `quake.c` and `bsp.c` source files.
...

AGPL-3.0-only for copyleft. I don't see any reason to use GPL instead of AGPL unless you wanna kowtow to corpos like Google (which I do not).
The era of WASM and gigacloud there is little distinction between a desktop software application and something server-based.
Imagine getting license-cucked because someone is running your GPL code behind a thin-client or something.

I still remember when SSPL (based on AGPL) got rejected by OSI and discussions came up with the idea of "viral license attacks" where a cloud-integrated stacks would be in shambles if a npm package decided to switch to a license that forced them to to fork or rewrite the package from scratch.

If I'm writing something small, a library, or gamedev related I'll often lean towards permissive license. I use copyleft for end-user software or anything I consider to have corporate value (fuck corpos).

Sounds reasonable.

+NIGGER for art and political dissident material, of course.

So true. It's such a powerful modifier that redditors who actively look for "free for everyone except for corpos" licenses avoid it.
Is there a more complete list of +NIGGER compatible licenses?

 

[Neo-Nazi Rich Evans]

So true. It's such a powerful modifier that redditors who actively look for "free for everyone except for corpos" licenses avoid it.
Is there a more complete list of +NIGGER compatible licenses?

i am legit surprised that github doesnt auto nuke any repo using the +NIGGER license.


for me, i tend to lean towards always using copy-left more than MIT stuff. i just dont like the idea of anything i write being used for closed source stuff. copy-left isnt perfect, but it does help.

 

[Drone]

Caring about how people use your code/who uses your code is simply obsessive. Attempting to actually enforce a software license violation requires doxxing yourself to whoever's violating it (unless you have a company you can hide behind). Litigating for software license violations in hobby contexts is also fairly costly. The only way an independent privacy-valuing individual can reasonably get an open source license enforced is if you have a large enough platform to sic a hate mob toward whoever's violating it. And that's only if you discover the violation to begin with.

GPL is useful if you want to lower the chances of corporations using your code (sadly, not all of them avoid it like the plague), but note that it doesn't innately require attribution. GPL also means dealing with license conflicts stemming entirely from Section 7, "Additional Terms" (which lays out an explicit set of additional clauses that you're allowed to apply to GPL. No other clauses are allowed. Most of these exist solely as compatibility carveouts for popular FOSS licenses).

The most notable form of conflict is with licenses carrying commercial use restrictions, such as the optional non-commercial clause of the Creative Commons, and the Commons Clause. This means that anyone complying with GPL is able to monetize a GPL work to their heart's content, and nothing can legally stop them. This is a surprisingly common dealbreaker, especially in the context of open source game development.

MIT is useful if you want attribution, or want to combine it with other bite-sized licenses. It's a very solid "go do whatever" license, and one that doesn't carry any additional baggage.

Personally, I license all of my hobby work under CC0 where possible. I prefer that others simply not worry at all about using my code and other work for their own purposes, regardless of what those purposes are. Time spent pursuing license violations is far better spent sitting down and actually making shit.

 

[CrunkLord420]

+NIGGER license is enforced via internalized spooks and social pressure, not the legal system.