Put it this way: when you use GIMP to create a picture, your picture doesn’t have to be GPL. The image you created is your creation, you decide what license, if any, it’ll have. What the GPL demand is that if you make a change to the GIMP code and share that improved version, you have to do so as GPL.

Likewise, people using your language to create their stuff are free to license whatever they create how they please. They do need to share their improvements to your tools as GPL though.

So perhaps the best option for you is to license the runtime for your language (and some basic libraries) as LGPL so people can link to them with their creations. And everything else that isn’t meant to be linked with the user program at runtime can be licensed as GPL.

If you plan on making money off of your software, dual license AGPL and commercial. True open source developers can benefit from your work for free and contribute, while clients that would rather not have GPL can pay you.

The reason for AGPL is to prevent people taking your GPL code, changing it, hosting it as SaaS, and never disclosing their changes as technically they’re not distributing the software.

Also, your non core business libraries are the most prime candidates for GPL/AGPL. You want to benefit from community contributions to those, not bear the full cost of development and give it away for free without getting anything in return.

She spent 11 days detained.

“I was put in a cell, and I had to sleep on a mat with no blanket, no pillow, with an aluminum foil wrapped over my body like a dead body for two and a half days,” […] “I have never in my life seen anything so inhumane.” She went on to describe one incident when she and 30 other women were moved in the middle of the night to a facility in Arizona. During the ordeal, she was forced to be “up for 24 hours wrapped in chains.”

From CBC.CA (Eagles is her mother’s surname):

Eagles said the detainees at the San Luis facility have no sleeping mats or blankets or windows, and the lights are on all day and night.

An organization pivoting hard on their entire software stack because someone didn’t like a word in a message somewhere… someone powerful in there didn’t arrive by competence alone.

Considering there’s no incentive for a developer donating their work for free to add thin-skinned users to the masses demanding features and fixes, I can’t say I disavow them. Anyone can just fork their project to change the name, and handle the hassle.

If such a thing would happen, all you need to do is fork the previous, copyleft, version of the code and go on with life as if nothing happened. That’s an economic disincentive for maintainers to try such shenanigans.

OnlyOffice is certainly more mature as a hosted app. It was born like this, the desktop version was the port. LibreOffice Online is still beta, I think.

So if your interest is in hosting and online editing, OnlyOffice. Also has an interface that’s very similar to MS Office 365, which can be a pro or con to some. LibreOffice has a more traditional toolbar paradigm.

You can try both before string up a server to see what you prefer. They’re both copyleft so no chance of a rug pull.

So like OnlyOffice and LibreOffice Online?

Edit: to clarify: both of these products can be self hosted. OnlyOffice’s main business model is to sell hosting services, their software is AGPL v3.

I’m not complaining, but why create something from the ground up when they could be improving OnlyOffice or LibreOffice?

Honestly all the highlights are really cool. The non destructive editing is a game changer.

I don’t want Mozilla to be handling my personal data in any way. Anonymized usage statistics? I could be convinced to relinquish that. But that’s it.