My suggestion would be to license it under the AGPLv3+ for everyone, and then continue to sell commercial licenses to anyone who wants an alternative to the AGPL. Most corporations will refuse to use that license even though they're allowed to (e.g., https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...) and it's 100% FOSS.
> if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use.
Then it wouldn't be open source, so I am not rooting for that.
However, for better or worse, large successful businesses can be built on scaring companies to pay for a commercial proprietary license and/or support, for copyleft open source.
keepamovin|2 years ago
It may be too late!
Other products in this: Qt - https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html, Isotope - https://github.com/metafizzy/isotope#license
What do you suggest?
josephcsible|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
orra|2 years ago
Then it wouldn't be open source, so I am not rooting for that.
However, for better or worse, large successful businesses can be built on scaring companies to pay for a commercial proprietary license and/or support, for copyleft open source.