[Suggestion] Please use Affero GPL or similar for the license

[ohmios]

Short version: Please use the?GNU Affero General Public License for open.mp

Long version:
If I understand correctly open.mp will be open source once it's released to the public. This is great! There's only a small detail I realize just now about the specific license terms open.mp choose and what it could mean for the players.

First, if open.mp uses a non strong copyleft license, this could allow for third parties to create closed source versions of open.mp, and with the correct marketing they could even become more popular than open.mp itself. This would be terrible for the players because they will lose the freedom, convenience and other advantages that only an open source development can give. To prevet this I suggest using a strong copyleft license such as the GPL. This way, third parties are still allowed to modify open.mp's source code to their heart's content. But they will required to share the full modified source code when distributing their modified version. This will be beneficial to the open.mp developers because they will be able to merge popular changes.

Second, the server part of open.mp will be just as important as the client part. Taking this into consideration, another point also related to the first?must be highlated. And this is the fact that most licenses?don't prevent server owners?from modifying the open.mp server source code and not?release the source code to their users. This is because connecting to a server does not count as distributing in the copyleft context. To prevent this I suggest using a license that prevents this, such as the?Affero GPL.?This way, third parties are still allowed to modify open.mp's server source code to their heart's content. But they will required to share the full modified source code to the players connecting to their server.

Using the?GNU Affero General Public License for free distribution?could allow open.mp a way of monetization?by selling non copyleft licenses, there's lots of companies developing open source using this kind of business model.

Finally, what I want to prevent is closed source forks of open.mp becoming incompatible with the original open source version, I dont have any issue with open source forks of open.mp being incompatible?because as long as they are open source too, then open.mp can simply merge the changes to keep? compatibility if necessary.

For more information on the?GNU Affero General Public License:?Why the Affero GPL

[Seanny]

Sounds good, but my worry is that people will make closed source versions regardless, ignoring the AGPL.



I don't know how often that actually happens, but if you wanna believe Kalcor, he said that open source licenses are "rarely respected".



For non-profit platforms (like Open.MP), I'm in support of a strong open-source license.

[JustMichael]

Thanks for making this suggestions.



Unfortunately, we have already setup our project to use the MPL Licence, we did debate all the licensing types before we agreed on one. We personally didn't like the GPL licence due to it being based on a project level compared to a file level.



Know what you have brought this to our attention, we may decide to re-think our current decision. However a few of our members are already happy with the MPL licence and will most likely stay with it. So yes this is now on on-going conversation.



If we decide to change our licensing we will post an update here, else you can assume we have chosen to stay without current choice.

[Y_Less]

It is very rare that a fork succeeds over the master branch purely by keeping the source closed. It will almost always be marketing and community that pushes that, regardless of where the source code is. I am also very opposed to the GPL license, because of its viral nature. It stops you mixing your own code with FOSS code, by mandating what you must do with your own code. This is why everything I've ever done is MPL - this applies a license to just a file. Any modifications to that file must be shared, but any unrelated code is yours to do with as you please. Some sort of Affero MPL would be best - any modifications to our code must always be fed back, even when hosted, but when used with other code that other code doesn't need to be. I don't know if such a license exists, or can be written.