💜💜🫂Thank you for sharing. I benefited a lot. Can you share more about the choice of open source license?
You don't seem to have a lightning address, so I can't zap you.
You're not the only one my friend.
This is my personal opinion: If your application's value is dependent on it's it's ability to protect its source code, then it's not actually a valuable product.
What I mean to say is, how does "protecting" your source code generate or hold on to revenue? Because its perceived as something you can sell? As in, no other entity can "steal" or recreate your idea from all of your effort in building your code base? Furthermore nostr and arguably most of us devs believe in a world where the developer's brain and ability to ship a product far outweigh the value in existing source code.
Many commercial or enterprise products (think of linux distros) are 100million dollar businesses building open source products. Beyond that the likelihood your product is going to compete directly with a fork of itself is arguably none depending on your licensing strategy, because they don't have you and your vision. And even further if you're worried about a fork competition, you are already in competition with other similar applications. This is where licensing choices weigh heavily.
nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl or nostr:npub1wqfzz2p880wq0tumuae9lfwyhs8uz35xd0kr34zrvrwyh3kvrzuskcqsyn would you have any more thoughs here?
Discussion
Just something to think about is all. I don't want to pressure you into OSS, I do think closed source can be necessary in some cases. Specifically for nostr, I think many of us come here expecting to escape the requirement to blindly trust the product and its developers. I trust many of us here to be morally aligned but that can be quite naive.
I personally prefer copy-left. Many prefer completely permissive licensing. For code that produces a product, I would personally (and usually do for my own code) choose the GPLv2+ or AGPLv3+. Both areGNU copy-left license.
It requires anyone who uses your code build their own product to release your source (or their modified source) publicly. Damus is GPL I believe and its looks like Amethyst is MIT. AGPL has the requirement for server usage. That is if your code sits behind a production application but is not public facing, if changes were made, your code must be made available (with your name on it!) both modified AND your original source code.
There are other more and less permissive licenses out there, but I appreciate the history of GNU and FSF defending developers using their licenses.
It's probably going to take a while to choose a license you like, but it's meant to protect you AND your users/community.
I may be on the extreme side, I won't lie, I like owning my code, and having my name displayed because I'm proud and have an ego, but I highly respect my user's rights, so once my code hits a user's hands, its theirs to do what they want with it. Free and always available as long as I'm working on it. That's why I use copy-left.
Amazing! Thank you for your patient and sincere sharing. This has benefited me a lot. Thank you so much. I will consider it carefully. 💜💜💜🫂🫡
Anytime! If you have any questions, feel fee to tag me or anyone working on the nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz project.
Thanks 🫂🫂🫂🫡
🫡
You lost me at "I do think closed source can be necessary"