Choosing between licenses – even copyleft vs non-reciprocal – is less important than ensuring everyone has equal rights & responsibilities.
@webmink I don't necessarily agree, I can see cases for asymmetric licensing.
e.g. the project is released as AGPL-3, but contributions are licensed Apache-2 | GPL-3 | AGPL-3, such that if it's needed, a set of people (let's call them OG maintainers) can relicense it under a more permissive license if needed for some other project.
@webmink Like you're building a web project, but later realize stuff is actually useful as a library, and you want to relicense from AGPL-3 to GPL-3
@juliank Why should all the people whose changes improved the code in the interim not also have that freedom?
@webmink Because I really want to license as AGPL-3, but could be convinced to relicense to something weaker for a good cause, but don't want just any recipient (or contributor) to be able to do so.
@juliank But once you have formed a community around that code with that "constitution", why are you entitled to unilaterally change the rules, especially to give away other people's contributions? If you are reserving that right why should everyone else trust you?
@webmink I think more as an intermediate step, when you start but don't have a full view of possible use cases yet and want to keep options open until you have enough community.
It's like "hey we want to get this code out, but we're unsure who wants to use that and what licensing constraints they have"
@webmink IIRC, I did this once on a project for a couple of weeks while figuring things out because I did not want to keep the code behind my doors.
Mastodon for Art