- Try to make it clear in the description that it's software rendering (it's easy to miss this information).
- The readme should include a clear list of features.
- Be aware that the AGPL license might be a problem for many people.
- Try to make it clear in the description that it's software rendering (it's easy to miss this information).
- The readme should include a clear list of features.
- Be aware that the AGPL license might be a problem for many people.
If I care about free software but also want to "protect" my work to prevent people from forking it without releasing their contributions because of strong copyleft. Many of my open source personal projects are licensed under AGPL.
I personally don't use AGPL software if I intend on trying to expand on something as a business idea. I'd be fully willing to give back bugfixes and donate back, but I'm not about to hand off anything I pour months and years into to my competitors for free.
Library authors can pour "months and years" into their projects, and yet you expect them (but not yourself) to give away their code under more permissive terms, while you keep yours closed? The (A)GPL is a great choice because it forces people like you to either (1) open up your code or (2) pay for a closed-source license.
Not sure if it's what the OP wants, but I think it's a neat license and I don't see it used anywhere.
Nothing prevents the author from selling closed-source licenses, as long as they retain sole copyright over the code.
I'm more confused as to why it applies to this tbh. GPL would have sufficed no?