You are reading content from Scuttlebutt
@Rabble %MLaXYLovsO1JpOUuWXvuCJ97kfPXKU21v/Ta7bXuBw0=.sha256
Re: %4SexIxPRp

With @Planetary we chose MPL 2.0 because it's a free software license which is compatible with appstores. While you can put AGPL/GPL code in the appstore, anybody who wants to can complain to google / apple and they'll remove any AGPL/GPL apps. I believe this is also why @andrestaltz chose MPL 2.0 for manyverse.

Personally I tend to prefer an MIT/BSD style license because it values the practice and culture of free software over restrictions based on copyright law. I've considered re-licensing Planetary MIT because of this.

I think many free software / open source projects benefit from and are sustained by companies using and contributing to the codebases. The more permissive the license the more likely they're going to do it. Software that is AGPL and to some extent GPL, has the effect of preventing companies from using the software. That in turn keeps them from contributing. There are prolific contributions from developers who don't live in a capitalist economic system, but that's not most people.

Maybe this will upset people but i feel AGPL and proprietary code are two sides of the same coin. Sure you can see the code, but in a practical sense neither contribute to the commons.

Join Scuttlebutt now