Re-license under GPLv3

[torch2424]

After seeing the NES Classic and Playstation Classic use Open Source software that they are selling, it had me thinking more about whether the Apache License is right for me. As my original idea with Apache was, "I would simply like someone to at least put the effort of changing the name of the project before claiming it their own and running off with it". But the idea of someone taking my open source code, to make their own closed source version, that may or may not make improvements that may or may not be sent upstream, bothers me a little bit.

For the commercial part, and as controversial as it is, I personally really like what Mongo did. The dual licensing with AGPLv3 allows them to move open source forward, and let other open source projects thrive on top of their servers, but in the case of being used commercially (even as a network dependency) you need to pay / work with Mongo on a commercial license agreement.

However, I remember why GPL makes me uneasy, I don't want to restrict other dependent open source projects to HAVE to be open source. For instance, let's say I make a module that only adds two numbers together. If a larger server application library wants to use this super small and focused module as a dependency linked to their code, they would have to also be GPL. Which essentially boils down to License Comptibility

Also, another quick distinction is AGPL vs GPL. GPL can be used in commercial settings, as long as it's used in a separate process, and not linked to the code itself (e.g ran as a standalone program and not used as an API). Also, GPL source doesn't need to be disclosed to end users, if the code is only used on the server because end user's don't own the server. However, AGPL is different in that whether you interact with the code in a separate process or a server, if an end user uses the code, the dependent code needs to also be AGPL and disclosed.

Thus, from all this, it seems for me personally, MIT may be good for my small focused modules that are meant to be dependencies (like aesthetic-css), but my larger libraries and projects like wasmboy that are essentially 75%-100% of an application, should be GPL. As this should match my goals of sharing my code, as well as protecting it at the best time depending on the situation / project. And in the case of wasmboy specifically, I thin GPL is the best since it aligns with projects I am hoping I can get to integrate with WasmBoy like Homebrew Hub, and Retroarch (Which are also GPL, thus license compatibility). Lastly, taking note from other emulators like MAME and mGBA, copyleft (GPL like licenses) seems to makes sense to others as well for emulators. 😄

References:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1273231
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/197710/how-to-use-gpl-v3-with-apache-license-2-0
https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#banned
https://opensource.guide/legal/#which-open-source-license-is-appropriate-for-my-project
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/283266/can-i-commerically-use-gpl-licensed-software-on-my-server-if-i-am-only-distribut
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
https://www.mongodb.com/community/licensing
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/support/oss/
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1723/can-i-release-under-agpl-a-program-that-uses-a-gpl-library
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1978511/is-there-a-chart-of-which-oss-license-is-compatible-with-which