Me too.
I’ve never been a fan of coercive licensing. I don’t consider that “open.” It’s “strings-attached.”
I make mine MIT-licensed. If someone takes my stuff, and gets rich (highly unlikely), then that’s fine. I just don’t want some asshole suing me, because they used it inappropriately, or a bug caused them problems. I don’t even care about attribution.
I mainly do it, because it forces me to take better care, when I code.
There's no such thing as coercive licensing, and thinking there is is buying into the myths proprietary vendors perpetuate because they're tired of not being able to farm labor from Open Source developers. It's very interesting that the "viral" nonsense came from Microsoft, isn't it?
Maybe so, but we should probably mention that to the lawyers that go after corporations for GPL violations.
If I try to force others to change their behavior, then that’s basically “coercion.” Sort of the definition of the word.
No matter. We are each free to follow our own muse.
You wouldn't even be the 100th developer to eventually regret that.
> eventually regret that
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've been doing it for a couple of decades, so far, and haven't regretted it. Am I holding it wrong?
I'd be grateful for some elucidation.
Thanks!