Conversation
|
We chose the AGPL to make sure that anyone else using and improving the core components, has to contribute back. I'm not convinced that a more liberal license would really foster the use of metal-stack in a way that we get more contributions, even though they don't need to contribute any longer. |
|
I never understood all the FUD against copyleft licenses... |
It actually prevented one potential contributor to even start using it. |
During the past 7 Years we did not see a single contribution from a outside organisation, mostly because interested parties mostly do not allow their employees to contribute to AGPL licensed projects. In the flip side, other projects in the metal-stack org which are more openly licensed, got a lot of external contributions, most prominent example is https://metal-stack.io/go-ipam. AGPL is currently preventing us to join the metal-stack project to the https://neonephos.org foundation. So please make it possible to: a:) gain more external contributions |
We had AGPL because we wanted to enforce third parties which eventually use also metal-stack to contribute back their enhancements. We did not get any external contributions to metal-api in the past. AGPL is also a forbidden LICENSE for a lot of companies to contribute to which might be the reason why we did not get any. Other repos in our org, which are Apache-2.0 or MIT licensed, did get quite a lot of contributions.
I added a lot of reviewers which contributed in the past to let everyone know about my proposed change.