Just open sourced a dating platform under a custom OSI-compatible license (CPL-1.0) — would love feedback on the license itself
I just open sourced *CompanioNation* (https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core), a free dating platform built to challenge the extractive monopolies currently dominating online dating.
The project aims to ensure at least one viable dating platform remains permanently free, without artificial scarcity (limited likes/swipes), dark patterns, paywalls on basic human interaction, or algorithmic manipulation designed to extract money rather than foster genuine connection.
I'm releasing this under a *custom permissive license called CPL-1.0* (CompanioNation Public License), which I designed to be OSI-compatible while explicitly encouraging forks, independent deployments, and alternative interpretations.
*Here's where I'd love feedback from experienced open source folks:*
1. *Custom license concerns*: I created CPL-1.0 as a permissive license that allows commercial/SaaS use, includes explicit patent grants, and preserves attribution without imposing control. But is creating a custom license more trouble than it's worth? Should I have just used Apache 2.0 or MIT instead? I wanted something that explicitly *encourages plurality and competition* rather than just allowing it.
2. *Governance for a "competitive ecosystem" project*: Most open source projects aim for a single canonical implementation. This project explicitly wants to spawn competitors and alternatives. How do you structure governance/community when your stated goal is to encourage forks and divergence rather than convergence?
3. *No CONTRIBUTING.md yet*: I don't have formal contribution guidelines yet. For a project that's philosophically about decentralization and plurality, should contribution guidelines even try to enforce consistency, or should they lean into encouraging experimentation?
4. *Tech stack concerns*: It's built on .NET/Blazor WebAssembly with SQL Server (SSDT) and Azurite for local development. I know the Microsoft stack isn't the typical FOSS choice. Does this create real barriers for open source contributors, or is it fine as long as the setup is well-documented?
The README mentions plans for local community events and offline meetups branded under CompanioNation. I'm curious if anyone has experience with open source projects that bridge digital platforms and real-world community organizing.
*Tech stack*: C# / .NET / Blazor WASM / SQL Server / Azurite
*Auth*: Google OAuth
*License*: CPL-1.0 (custom permissive)
Would genuinely appreciate any feedback — especially on the licensing decision and whether a custom license helps or hurts the goals here.
--- footnote ---
Btw since I'm an independent developer who threatens corporate profits I've been targeted for organized harassment which has resulted in negative Karma on Reddit and my inability to post this to r/opensource so if anyone could post it there I'd appreciate it.
Just open sourced a dating platform under a custom OSI-compatible license (CPL-1.0) — would love feedback on the license itself
I just open sourced *CompanioNation* (https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core), a free dating platform built to challenge the extractive monopolies currently dominating online dating.
The project aims to ensure at least one viable dating platform remains permanently free, without artificial scarcity (limited likes/swipes), dark patterns, paywalls on basic human interaction, or algorithmic manipulation designed to extract money rather than foster genuine connection.
I'm releasing this under a *custom permissive license called CPL-1.0* (CompanioNation Public License), which I designed to be OSI-compatible while explicitly encouraging forks, independent deployments, and alternative interpretations.
*Here's where I'd love feedback from experienced open source folks:*
1. *Custom license concerns*: I created CPL-1.0 as a permissive license that allows commercial/SaaS use, includes explicit patent grants, and preserves attribution without imposing control. But is creating a custom license more trouble than it's worth? Should I have just used Apache 2.0 or MIT instead? I wanted something that explicitly *encourages plurality and competition* rather than just allowing it.
2. *Governance for a "competitive ecosystem" project*: Most open source projects aim for a single canonical implementation. This project explicitly wants to spawn competitors and alternatives. How do you structure governance/community when your stated goal is to encourage forks and divergence rather than convergence?
3. *No CONTRIBUTING.md yet*: I don't have formal contribution guidelines yet. For a project that's philosophically about decentralization and plurality, should contribution guidelines even try to enforce consistency, or should they lean into encouraging experimentation?
4. *Tech stack concerns*: It's built on .NET/Blazor WebAssembly with SQL Server (SSDT) and Azurite for local development. I know the Microsoft stack isn't the typical FOSS choice. Does this create real barriers for open source contributors, or is it fine as long as the setup is well-documented?
The README mentions plans for local community events and offline meetups branded under CompanioNation. I'm curious if anyone has experience with open source projects that bridge digital platforms and real-world community organizing.
*Tech stack*: C# / .NET / Blazor WASM / SQL Server / Azurite *Auth*: Google OAuth *License*: CPL-1.0 (custom permissive)
Would genuinely appreciate any feedback — especially on the licensing decision and whether a custom license helps or hurts the goals here.
--- footnote --- Btw since I'm an independent developer who threatens corporate profits I've been targeted for organized harassment which has resulted in negative Karma on Reddit and my inability to post this to r/opensource so if anyone could post it there I'd appreciate it.