Choosing My Licenses

The previous post made the case: the license is not a formality — it is what separates a sustainable open model from one that quietly gives everything away. Now comes the harder part: actually choosing.

Code and writing serve different purposes, attract different kinds of use, and need different approaches.

My Wishes

Code and writing face different risks, and the wishes follow from that.

For code, the risk is extraction — a commercial operator running a hosted service, profiting without contributing back. What the license should do:

• Anyone can use, fork, self-host, and build freely. No barriers for individuals, researchers, non-profits, or companies building something of their own.
• Commercial operators who run it as a service must either keep their changes open or buy a license. Two paths, both available, neither hidden.
• A compensation path exists alongside the open terms. Not a blanket restriction — a structured route to engagement.

For writing, the risk is obscurity — ideas that do not spread do not build credibility, attract contributors, or create the commercial relationships the model depends on. What the license should do:

• Anyone can read, share, quote, translate, and adapt freely — including commercially. No permission barriers. Maximum reach.
• Derivatives must carry the same open license forward — or buy out of that condition. Proprietary derivatives require a commercial license, creating the same dual-licensing path as the code.

Options

Code

For code, the specific risk is a commercial operator running the code as a hosted service — charging customers, keeping modifications private, contributing nothing back. ✅ meets the criterion, ⚠️ partial or conditional, ❌ does not.

• Free to use — anyone can use, modify, and build without restriction; ⚠️ if free use is conditional (e.g. revenue or size threshold applies).
• Covers SaaS — copyleft or restrictions trigger on network access, not just on distributing copies; ❌ if only distribution triggers the license or there is no restriction at all.
• Compensation path — the license channels commercial exploitation toward payment rather than simply blocking it; ❌ if commercial use is only restricted or only freely permitted with no middle path.
• OSI-approved — meets the Open Source Initiative definition; ❌ for source-available or proprietary-addendum licenses.
• Dual licensing — copyleft leverage creates a meaningful paid commercial license option for operators who cannot accept the open terms; ⚠️ if dual licensing is technically possible but the leverage is weak.

Writing

For writing — blog posts, essays, and long-form pieces — the priority is reach: ideas spreading as widely as possible, being built on freely, with derivatives staying open. ✅ meets the criterion, ⚠️ partial or conditional, ❌ does not.

• Free to share — anyone can redistribute the work without asking; ⚠️ if sharing is permitted only under specific conditions.
• Allows adaptation — the work can be translated, remixed, or built upon commercially; ⚠️ if adaptations are restricted to non-commercial use only.
• ShareAlike — derivatives must carry the same open license forward; ⚠️ if share-alike applies but is combined with other restrictions such as non-commercial.
• Widely recognised — the license is broadly understood by readers, publishers, and platforms without explanation; ⚠️ if recognition is limited to specific communities.

My Decision

Across eighteen code licenses and eleven writing licenses, only one in each category satisfies every criterion. Not the most permissive, not without friction for some commercial actors — but the only one where none of the criteria came back as a cross.

Code

GNU Affero General Public License v3 (AGPL)

AGPL closes the SaaS loophole: most copyleft licenses only trigger on distribution, so a company can run the code as a commercial hosted service without ever sharing changes. AGPL treats network access the same as distribution — modifications must be published, or a commercial license must be purchased. That commercial license is the compensation path.

Exception: for utilities, libraries, or tooling where SaaS deployment is not the risk, MIT remains the right choice — permissive, minimal, and universally understood.

Writing

CC Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) 4.0

CC BY-SA keeps the ideas in maximum circulation while ensuring derivatives stay open. Anyone can read, quote, translate, adapt, and share freely — including commercially — as long as they carry the same license forward. Derivatives that cannot carry that license must be licensed commercially. That commercial license is the compensation path. The priority is reach: ideas spreading, being built on openly, and returning to the commons. The commercial path engages where it matters — at proprietary lock-in, not at open use.

Alignment

The two licenses draw the same line, in different domains.

AGPL: use the code freely, fork it, self-host it, build on it — but run it as a commercial service and you must publish your changes or buy a commercial license. The leverage is the copyleft condition on network deployment.

CC BY-SA: use the writing freely, share it, adapt it, build on it — including commercially — but create a proprietary derivative and you must buy a commercial license. The leverage is the ShareAlike condition on derivatives.

Both licenses make the same offer: open use is free, closed commercial exploitation requires engagement. The risk each addresses is different — extraction for code, proprietary lock-in for writing — but the structure is the same. Two artifacts. Two license families. One principle. The terms are public and the reasoning is here. Anyone who wants to build a proprietary commercial relationship on top of this work knows where to start.