Choosing a better license

[Ph0enixKM]

Problem

Someone might want to publish an app on the AppStore, GooglePlay or any other store that uses Amber compiler under the hood. Currently GPLv3 makes it impossible to do so and I don't like it. I was wondering if we can switch GPLv3 to some less restrictive license. I want other people to sell their apps that utilize amber compiler for money if that will help them maintain the app and maybe earn some extra. Just like they can with Python for instance (there is an app Pythonista)

Question

As I'm not too experienced with licensing, what license would be perfect for this project? Apache License 2.0, Unicode v3, MIT, BSD?

[b1ek]

less restrictive license like MIT or BSD basically means that some corporate entity can make a proprietary fork of amber and pour a lot of resources into it, rendering our original project obsolete. or add changes to it and distribute it in its app store with a proprietary license

GPL doesnt allow sublicensing, though. meaning every fork or derivative must be licensed under GPL

corporate app stores that don't like copyleft licenses and will ban apps that may use amber is a way too small issue imo to switch to a permissive license just for this. especially since they can not include amber in the app itself, and download it after the user installs the app thus not actually distributing GPL-licensed content in the app store

[Ph0enixKM]

I see then. I like this trait in GPL. Forking the project by some big company and making it proprietary should be prohibited. I wanted allow developers to create apps that use Amber compiler as a dependency

[b1ek]

I wanted allow developers to create apps that use Amber compiler as a dependency

they can still do that by downloading amber into the app right after the user installs it, therefore there is no GPL licensed content distributed in their app via the app store

[mks-h]

Currently GPLv3 makes it impossible to do so

Maybe not impossible, but certainly questionable.

utilize amber compiler for money

You can sell your GPL software so long as you provide source code on request from the client. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Honestly, I couldn't care less to support proprietary applications and/or their authors. But we can settle for LGPL:

The license allows developers and companies to use and integrate a software component released under the LGPL into their own (even proprietary) software without being required by the terms of a strong copyleft license to release the source code of their own components. However, any developer who modifies an LGPL-covered component is required to make their modified version available under the same LGPL license.

[Ph0enixKM]

I had this idea to build an app that is an Amber code editor that can SSH into a server and run an Amber script. Thanks for clarifying this @mks-h. We can keep the GPLv3 license then

[mks-h]

Yeah, that will not be considered a derivative work.

[lens0021]

Though this does not relate to the publishing you talked about, How about the dual licensing?

[Ph0enixKM]

How would that work with GPL? Could you explain?

[lens0021]

If GPL does not allow something, we will choose to mix GPL and another license which allows it.
A fork can remove a license of the sources in their needs.