Seeking community suggestion for licensing

With the AGPL, please also consider the small developer in setting your fees. I am happy to pay reasonable fees for commercial use, but several AGPL owners charge exorbitant fees.

For example, Ghostscript. The owner wants several $k up front and several more $k per year. I can’t pay that, because I’m very small. So I use GPL Ghostscript, which is poorly maintained and has to be run in a sandbox for security reasons. I can use GPL Ghostscript because there’s no link, just a process call, which the AGPL forbids.

1 Like

I didn't expect to see this. Wow. AGPL works: developer has some say now. @seanharrison thank you for sharing.

Let's split from this a second observation that developers are not always good at negotiating. Lawyers/brockers have this excercise more often: side A wants X, side B wants Y, where is a middle ground for a deal to make happen.
By the way, deal is when both sides give in.

Obviously, there are no articulated and promoted patterns for an agreement here. It would be nice to have a few. We should ask FSF and likes to compile and articulate patterns so that devs on both sides have something to start with.

Nevertheless, let's hack out suggestions, like we hack out code in absence of any hints. Let's be pro-active. It won't hurt, i.e. don't comment that we are going out of scope, since actual application of licensing regime is functionally within the scope of this topic. :balance_scale:

How about suggesting that pay is $x, while you are small, going up to $y, when you grow? Specify what small and later are. This way you tell developer that you are real, and you have a similar pain.
Also add a provision that if buying party gives away software to a bigger related company, related company's use of software matters.
Also, agreement should talk about acquisition of buying side.

I'll be at LibrePlanet 2020, and I'll personally bug non-tech guys to write some agreement patterns, semi-blessed, mostly explained for devs' consumption.

1 Like

@seanharrison Agree with this. Glad to see response like this.

Can you explain in more detail, on the surface both MIT and Apache looks the same credit wise.

not exactly (and again i'm no lawyer), but when someone distributes your code in a bigger app, it must also contain a reference to your library.
with MIT you can do whatever you want and not even mention it.
i admit that today it's a bit less important to me but it's more of a force of habit (i copy an existing git repo when starting a new one)

MIT also requires copying the notice into the resulting software, which includes the author in the copyright line:

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

It’s less restrictive on precisely where the notice must be placed, but for the subset of developers that actually comply with this clause I’ve mostly seen them including it in the documentation anyway.

cool. ya, it has been a really long time since i read those licenses and investigated that subject :slight_smile: