I’m rebuilding an app that I made few years ago to make it open-source and free from big company dependencies (for example replacing Firebase with Appwrite)… Now, since it’s already live on Codeberg, I think it would be good to give it a license but I’m super new to FOSS licenses and so I don’t know how to move… Which one would you suggest me?

    • leo_mantovani@lemmy.mlOP
      2·
      3 years ago

      Thank you! And, if for example someone forks my code and start distributing his new forked app, is there a license which would force him/her to credit the original project?

      • Joe Bidet@lemmy.ml
        2·
        3 years ago

        It’s not only about credit. All should do this. It’s a very very basic requirement.

        Just imagine:

        • Windows 23 is released and contains some of your code. made proprietary, as part of this immense piece of garbageware. your name is in a list somewhere, after a third click in a long boring screen of legal documents that nobody reads.

        are you OK with that? (that’s BSD/MIT)

        • Windows 23 developpers are thinking of using your code. their lawyers make them check the license, and think “damn! our evil plan is foiled! he’s using the GPL! we cannot re-use his software until our own software is released under the GPL and obviously we plan on selling proprietary crap to ppl who would run away scared if they can actually look at the code of what they bought. we’ll have to plagiarize this guy by rebuilding his software, nobody will know.”

        do you want that? (that’s *GPL)

      • Echedenyan@lemmy.ml
        1·
        3 years ago

        If you are going to use AGPL, I would recommend you to use EUPL 1.2 instead which is compatible with more FLOSS licenses.

  • poVoq@lemmy.ml
    6·
    3 years ago

    Most likely GPLv3 for the client app and AGPL for any server side component.

  • Joe Bidet@lemmy.ml
    4·
    3 years ago

    A political answer here:

    • if you want your code to be part of a movement for freedom, to be part of creating a “bubble of freedom” that will serve the world while protecting itself and its users, but fully serve only those whose interests are aligned with the objectives of freedom: go *GPL.
    • if you don’t give a f%ck, that you think code is not political and do it just for fun, go to a “business-friendly” (some call them “permissive” but i tend to see freedom to do business at somebody else’s exprense rather “exploitative” than anything myself…), *BSD*MIT*etc.
    • federico3@lemmy.ml
      2·
      3 years ago

      It’s incorrect to describe using BSD/MIT “not political”. It allows proprietization and does not protect users and authors from tivoization, patents and trademarks.

      • Joe Bidet@lemmy.ml
        2·
        3 years ago

        I didnt write that “BSD/MIT is not political” as i agree with your statement. I said “if you think that code is not political”, as it is a statement you often hear from ppl who don’t want to think too much about license (or about anything else but code). I was describing a symptom, a state of mind (that make ppl opt for BSD and other “exploitative-free” licenses).

      • Joe Bidet@lemmy.ml
        2·
        3 years ago

        this website seems very biased to me as it is written by a Microsoft company.

        • it uses overly complex legal mumbo jumbo to describe the copyleft licenses, while describing the non-copyleft ones in friendly terms “A short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring…” making them more appealing somehow.
        • it mentions a permission to PATENT things, with all licenses. when software patents must be banned, and in practices only exist in some weird loophole in the EU. While FSF site reads as "GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the program’s contributors and redistributors. " (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html )
        • it propagates the meme that allowing ppl to make proprietary crap out of your software is “permissive”. like if having the right to own slaves would give you… more freedom…?
        • vpzom@narwhal.city
          0·
          3 years ago
          • This page has existed long before GitHub was owned by Microsoft, so that’s not really a meaningful claim
          • My reading of the patent stuff is that the licenses that mention them disallow the authors from patenting the software, but I agree that that’s not super clear from the page itself
          • Permissive is the established term for such a license, I don’t know what else you’d call it that isn’t offensive