LICENSE

[unix-supremacist]

you should probably license this project sooner rather than later, as relicensing code without getting the permission of every contributor is legally questionable at best, and no license is all rights reserved, unless the project is meant to be that which even in that case it should be specified

[swindlesmccoop]

I've meant to talk about this but I hate licenses. I'm not sure what to put on something like this. Basically my requirements are like this

• don't use code without credit
• don't use code for something proprietary
• don't use code for a paid service

[unix-supremacist]

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

seems to be basically what you want, however i don't see a necessity for source requirement, imo that's not a big deal since you're at least allowed to decompile it and take changes back, as it forces the same license.

do note that while i personally agree with not allowing code to be used in paid services, the FSF probably considers this a non free license, so you might get free software activists complaining

been talking to some people about this and there doesn't seem to be a better license for this requirement currently, libre software and anti paid service is at odds currently.

as relicensing code without getting the permission of every contributor is legally questionable at best

apparently yeah you straight up need the permission of every contributor, or remove the contributions and redo them from scratch to relicense under anything, you have my permission for my contribution to relicense under anything, as my contribution is literally trivial lol

[swindlesmccoop]

I'll keep this issue open in case anyone wants to offer input, but I may just take the "all rights reserved" route from here on out.

[unix-supremacist]

i did neglect to mention that AGPL, basically has the reverse if that is better, people can use it for paid services, but even if they don't distribute the binaries they have to give source.

you could also do a crayon license (aka a license written by yourself that has questionable legality) because that is enough for most people, and if the license is considered null it falls back to ARR anyway.

[Nolij]

I'd advise use of OSL-3.0 over AGPL-3.0. The "Affero" clause of AGPL (the part that makes it any different from GPL) was clearly written without the SaaS age in mind. The way OSL words this (in my opinion) does a far better job of achieving what most people choose AGPL for. Additionally, the incompatibility that use of OSL introduces is also present with AGPL, as AGPL isn't very commonly used either.