Hacker News Reader

>"OSS"-NC

would be proprietary software you don't have to reverse engineer

>[AGPL + another] still allows any 'customer' to use your software for commercial work without contributing anything back other than attribution

How so?

View on HN

I don't get your distinction between proprietary and OSS. It wouldn't be proprietary if this were an established license. Proprietary to me means you're bound to a vendor - here you'd just have to chip in for development if you're selling derivative works. (and you can and are encouraged to do that)

AGPL doesn't have any mention of commercialization - you can use it as an end user in any context for free, but you will have the same issues with selling derivative works due to copyleft. For software that's actually just software and not a service, say media production, it means that *GPL software will forever remain tools for hobbyists.

The fact that copyleft only kicks in when derivatives are distributed(GPL) or served(AGPL) indeed renders unviable selling copies of software. But I don't see how you could enable usage licensing without compromising most user "freedoms". This is certainly what "OSS-NC" would do, in contrast to even AGPL's copyleft. Instead, I think we would do better shifting the paradigm to the "pay per patch" model.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com