• charje@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    You still own the code you release under GPL. the restriction you are describing is actually caused by the non-copyleft licences you claim to prefer. If you choose to use MIT, you are limiting which libraries you can use. If you had picked GPL to begin with, you can use any library.

    • MJBrune@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t exclusively own my own works anymore. Which is different than just owning your own work. Exclusivity allows you to sell something. Without that ability, you can’t convert a product into money as easily.

      • meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the exclusive ownership of something, in order to sell it, is the primary choice driving factor of a project. Then you should just make it proprietary. Anything else would limit your margins, since someone else can just fork your project, change it and make it proprietary themselves. A dual license is sometimes used in this case as well.

      • charje@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can sell GPL licensed software. You don’t have to publish the source code publicly online.