I changed my license
Open-source developers are reassessing their licensing choices, with many questioning whether permissive licenses like MIT mainly enabled large corporations to profit while giving little back. Commenters weigh stronger copyleft options such as the EU Public License (EUPL) and AGPL, the “SaaS loophole,” and dual-licensing or source-available models like BUSL as ways to retain leverage over commercial users. Others argue that permissive licensing still maximizes social benefit and adoption, noting that enforcement is hard in practice and that AI-generated “reimplementations” may further erode the practical power of any license.
EUPL vs Other Copyleft Licenses
- Some welcome EUPL as strong copyleft grounded in EU law, closing the SaaS loophole and explicitly covering “communication to the public.”
- Others find its structure confusing: broad rights are granted up front, with conditions and restrictions only appearing later.
- The compatibility clause is controversial. One side argues it effectively weakens EUPL to the most permissive “compatible” license (e.g., MPL/LGPL); others say the intent is that EUPL obligations (like source publication and SaaS coverage) still apply unless they directly conflict.
- Several see EUPL as attractive for governments and EU-centric projects rather than as an anti–big-tech weapon.
Creative Commons: NC and ND Debates
- NC (“non-commercial”) is widely criticized as vague, differing by jurisdiction, and making reuse risky (e.g., YouTube monetization, teaching, charity work).
- ND (“no derivatives”) is seen as making works “dead-ends,” blocking remix culture; yet some authors, especially in academia or “authoritative writing,” value ND to avoid misattribution or distortion.
- Some long-time CC users combine share-alike, NC, and ND and still report viable book sales.
Permissive vs Copyleft and “SaaS Loophole”
- Permissive license advocates (MIT/Apache/BSD) emphasize maximal reuse, business friendliness, and fewer compatibility headaches.
- Copyleft proponents argue permissive licensing mostly subsidizes large corporations; they prefer GPL/AGPL/EUPL to require sharing improvements and to “ mildly inconvenience” companies that take without giving back.
- Others counter that open source’s main user benefit is broad availability and vendor competition, even if corporations profit.
Dual Licensing and Business Models
- BUSL and similar “source-available but revenue-gated” licenses are discussed as a way to let hobbyists and small users in while charging larger commercial users.
- Critics note such licenses are not OSI-approved and sit outside the traditional FOSS ecosystem, which may hurt adoption and interoperability.
- AGPL + commercial dual licensing is suggested as a practical pattern: AGPL deters big companies, while commercial terms are sold separately.
AGPL Perception and Corporate Use
- Many companies avoid AGPL due to uncertainty about how far its network “virality” extends; some developers treat AGPL as legally risky.
- Others see AGPL as the “cleanest” way to discourage cloud providers from extracting value without contributing.
AI, Reimplementation, and License Erosion
- Some argue LLMs and easy code reimplementation reduce the practical power of licenses; others respond that large, complex systems (e.g., kernels) remain out of reach for “vibecoding.”
- There is skepticism that licenses can meaningfully constrain AI training; current “fair use/transformative” arguments are seen as bypassing license intent.
Philosophical and Practical Issues
- Deep disagreement over whether copyleft is “forced charity” or the “truest charity” by preserving commons.
- Some see restrictive licenses as authoritarian; others see permissive licenses as enabling job losses and corporate concentration.
- Multiple commenters note that without resources to litigate, most licenses are only as strong as their enforcers.