What does HackerNews think of mycroft-core?

> Mycroft AI, Inc. maintains a device and account management system known as Mycroft Home. Developers may sign up at: https://home.mycroft.ai

By default, mycroft-core is configured to use Home. By saying "Hey Mycroft, pair my device" (or any other request verbal request) you will be informed that your device needs to be paired. Mycroft will speak a 6-digit code which you can entered into the pairing page within the Mycroft Home site.

[...]

> If you do not wish to use the Mycroft Home service, you may insert your own API keys into the configuration files listed below in configuration.

As others have stated, GPL/AGPL or anything "open" does NOT force business to buy a license. All it says it that _if_ they use your code, they have to make the code available to their users. (Today that often gets interpreted as made public, but it truly only requires that the users have access to it). So the business CAN still freely sell software that uses your code without your involvement in any way.

If you want to be paid by every business that uses your code, don't make it public. There really isn't any other way to force that behavior.

As far a commercial license goes, just basically just say it belongs to you and no usage is allowed without arrangements with you. That is generally wrapped up in a contract between you and the business. I haven't used it, but you can try a tool like this to generate that type commercial license: http://www.binpress.com/license/generator

One of the real advantages of going open for you (the author) is getting help from other people. Often it is small things, but you can get help. Doing a Dual License complicates this. As long as you are the owner of the code you can freely re-license it. But once you accept a code contribution to your GPL code, you cannot legally or ethically just resell that contributed code under the commercial license. So you either: 1) Reject all contributions from other programmers 2) Have two independent branches that might end up diverging 3) Asking every code contributor to grant you a license to also use their code under your commercial license.

To me, option #3 is questionable and probably won't fly well if your project takes off.

We moved Mycroft (https://github.com/MycroftAI/mycroft-core) from GPLv3 to Apache 2.0. There were various reason for this, but for us the biggest was that business generally avoids GPL code, and in some cases there the regulatory system comes in conflict with the requirements of GPL. For example, if a car brake system has GPLv3 code you are REQUIRED to provide a mechanism so users can replace that code. Good luck getting approval of a car. Even if you did get it approved, the car manufacturers would be terrified of the court cases they'd have to defend -- win or lose.

In short, if you don't think it is valuable enough to spend more than $100 on this, then just go with a well-known permissive open source license like MIT. If it takes off, you get famous and can command a high salary somewhere.