I generally don't like "viral" license that restrict software use, but I keep thinking about what a "cooperative" software license would look like. Would it restrict use to only members and other software being developed according to the statement on cooperative identity? What about non-profits that aren't operated cooperatively? Would it use some legal definition of "cooperative software" or co-ops as a business vehicle (in places where there is such a thing)?
Although I don't know what it means for a contributor to be able to use it commercially. Do they get to use it in any software that's not also cooperatively governed? Only in cooperative software made in their individual capacity? Do contributors to their software who get to exploit that software for commercial gain also by extension get to use the original upstream software? Does this make that clause effectively useless?
A few more thoughts this mroning:
- It would not meet the OSIs definition of Open Source (but it's the same for non-commercial use and who put OSI in charge of words anyways?)
- Unlike using AGPL and selling exceptions this doesn't make it unusable by people who don't want to re-license their project
- It has an issue where if someone else uses your software non-commercially then someone uses their software commercially they miss that yours is buried in the dependency chain
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!