AGPLv3 is the only way to go. If you want to make open source software, you need a license that protects your project and your users from corporate abuse.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
48 points (91.4% liked)
Linux
8169 readers
435 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How can sole maintainers work with multi-billion corporations without being taken advantage of?
They can't, thats why GPL is noncommercial. Capitalism is an exploitative system that relies on power imbalance. As soon as MS reached out, he should have made it clear they can't even look at his code for ideas without a contract and payment. He shouldn't have told them anything else without a contract. Papers with legal claims on them are the only language business speaks.
GPL isn't non-commercial. Non-commercial licenses are explicitly against the free software and open sources definitions by both FSF and OSI.
I think they meant it doesn't have broad commercial appeal. Which is somewhat true.
I'm almost sure they steal ideas that people write in teams chat too..
Did they steal your idea for an AI bot that places UberEats orders for Chipotle?
Sorry, bro 😔
Hey maybe i can get microsoft steal my idea for a service that combines local radio news with spotify/podcasts
I would also try to let them steal the current idea of European countries to stop using HW and SW solutions made in US, and switch to locally provided services. We'd avoid having around the globe those strange billionaires semi-tech bots
This came out a while ago. The developer used a license that said, "Steal this software, I don't care." Then he was shocked Pikachu when it was stolen.
His problem is the exact reason GPL was created.
The license does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else. It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source.
At the bottom of the README there was a thank you to myself and Spegel.
How much credit is needed to be counted as giving credit?
The license says (paraphrased) that you need to keep the original license file, which has the authors name. Even if you re-license it, you leave the old license there without touching it and put your new license next to it.
They did not follow that clause and deleted the original license and the original attribution.
A thanks does not necessarily imply credit.
In that case, I firmly disagree with Blue_Morpho's assessment.
I'm not a programmer, but I'd say if you copy large sections of a code, the original author belongs into the list of authors, not into the acknowledgement part, where you e.g. thank your significant other for their support, your collegues for their fruitful discussions or some society for their funding.