While Calibre being GPL v3 (with some code vendored in from a variety of different other GPL-compatible licenses) constrains much of Arcalibre to be GPL v3 as well, there is the question of what license should be used for all new code going forward, such as the spellsnake wrapper in arcalibre!14. I lean heavily towards copyleft licenses, after seeing how much “permissive” licenses have facilitated an undermining of labor rights, but even there, is GPL v3 the right answer? Are there other copyleft licenses worth considering, or other GPL variants like AGPL v3?

  • Cassandra GranadeOPMAEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    One other possible copyleft license, pointed out by /u/zkat@toot.cat, would be the Parity Public License. Like the GPL family, Parity looks to require copyleft-style contributions, but allows contributions to be under a weaker license than Parity itself as long as that license grants the user at least as much privilege as Parity itself does.

    Contribute

    To contribute software:

    • Publish all source code for the software in the preferred form for making changes through a freely accessible distribution system widely used for similar source code so the contributor and others can find and copy it.
    • Make sure every part of the source code is available under this license or another license that allows everything this license does, such as the Blue Oak Model License 1.0.0, the Apache License 2.0, the MIT license, or the two-clause BSD license.
    • Take these steps within thirty days.
    • Note that this license does not allow you to change the license terms for this software. You must follow Notices.

    That also has the quite nice advantage of not being as strongly tied to the FSF, which is a quite problematic organization to say the least. Definitely a good option worth considering!