@ocdtrekkie >I prefer permissive licensing
So called "permissive licenses" are usually more restrictive than the GPLv3, since they take a massive overstep by writing that copyright covers usage of software.

MIT expat: "the rights to *******use*******, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, *******subject to the following conditions*******:"

GPLv3: "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so."

> I think the failure of the OSI to accept SSPL or a similar variant thereof is a massive failure of the people we let dictate the definition of the term "open source".
The "SPPL" is a proprietary software licensed designed so that MongoDB can go collect money for exceptions when they feel like that they need some more money.
MongoDB tried to do this with the AGPLv3 before, but they soon realized that businesses they attempted to extort would just comply with the AGPLv3's requirements and not pay them.

Their "fix" to this was to take the AGPLv3 and modify it into a license that is almost impossible to comply with, so extorted companies would be forced to pay for a license exception.


The "OSI" is pretty good at slipping proprietary software licenses past the "open source definition" (https://opensource.org/osd - yup there's proprietary JavaScript on that page and it's clownflared), but even they couldn't get the "SSPL" past the 10 requirements.


>If I wrote something I expected to get ripped off by Amazon, I would probably copyleft it.
"Amazon" happily uses trivial libraries under pushover terms just to save a buck and a few hours, you should assume that they will.

You should license all your software under the AGPLv3-or-later or the GPLv3-or-later or in very rare situations the LGPLv3-or-later.


If you really wish to surrender all your software to the proprietary overlords, only this license will do a proper job once it's ready: https://wpdd.info/