If you want to protect against people forking the code, adding new features then preventing you from adapting those features back into your codebase, the AGPL is more than enough for that.
However, preventing forking for repackaging is pretty much NOT achievable by an open-source license, since, well, that's one of the core tenets of open source. The GPL and its derivatives were used by Linus to prevent people from taking the Linux kernel, developing proprietary features in it, then refusing to contribute those features back upstream (of course, this does not take into account kernel modules and all those other weird copyright cases, but you get the core idea). If this is what you want, the GPL/AGPL is enough for that. On Nov 9, 2016 7:11 PM, "Joerg Schilling" < [email protected]> wrote: > "Jim Klimov" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But even if someone does fork away into a new project, they might do so > to explore areas and opportunities you won't - and with license staying the > same (they still don't have rights to your and generally contributors' > original IP sufficient to relicense differently) - you can pick back what > you like into your parent project. > > This is why dual licensing ist a bad idea. > > Another person could chose "the other license" only for his enhancements. > > Jörg > > -- > EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 > Berlin > [email protected] (work) Blog: > http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/ > projects/schilytools/files/' > ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
