zlacker

>>lostms+(OP)
That is exactly why I am not open sourcing my .NET bindings for TensorFlow.

>>lostms+a
I don't know the details of your project, but what if you open sourced under the GPL?

I feels as though the world has soured on the GPL in recent years, but whenever I see this type of sentiment—that open sourcing work is just a gift from small developers to big tech companies, or something thereabouts—I think, wouldn't the GPL solve that problem?

Sure, big companies can still use GPL'd code, but they're forced to give back as much as they take, which is exactly the outcome you want.

(This doesn't necessarily apply to the situation with AppGet, however.)

>>Wowfun+k8
That would not have helped MongoDB. I considered their new license, but it seemed tailored to their specifics. So maybe more research is required.

Perhaps a variant of CC-BY NC would be better, but it is not tailored to code.

>>lostms+Jb
What’s wrong with AGPL?

>>colejo+cf
AFAIK AGPL permits linking without disclosing linked code like LGPL does. Meaning they can still distribute it as their own, train models and serve them with a simpler framework. Just can't build services powered directly by it.

>>lostms+0g
AGPL is as strict as GPL. It's just that GPL allows you to modify the source, serve them as a web application and not have to disclose the code.

AGPL addresses that by putting code distributed as a web application in the same category as compiled code.

>>leonid+Qk
If my web server calls out to AGPL software (such as executing a transform on a PDF using Ghostscript) as an external binary is this covered even though the AGPL code is not directly compiled, linked or modified? I'd assume so otherwise it would be a very easy loophole and code could be firewalled into separate modules but I'm not sure what exact language covers this in the license.