Comment by AlbertoGP
2 years ago
> I am considering relicensing my tools under some sort of Attribution-ShareAlike license similar to the BY-SA the content on this site is licensed under. […] This would still promote community contributions, but would also require that any modifications be shared alike meaning that the modified source would have to be provided and I would have to be credited as the original author.
Wouldn’t the GPL be a better match, this being software, than BY-SA? https://choosealicense.com/
I don't trust the GPL anymore after the RedHat debacle revealed the GPL allows you to charge for access to the source.
The GPL doesn't allow you to charge for access to the source code. Redhat will remove your right to future updates of the code if you exercise your GPL rights and share the source code from a release. The code you share will still be GPL'd, but you get kicked out of the club. Inb4 that is functionally the same as charging for code. No, it is holding future code hostage based on not exercising your rights. This goes against the spirit of the GPL, and we should fork it and just do something else after getting kicked out of corporate propaganda network, aka Redhat. Corporatists, all of em. They aren't doing GPL really. They will end up pulling out of the GPL in a future release anyway. Might as well cut our losses. Too much hand wringing about it, just say the truth about them.