Re: License

[Roland Kofler]

In practice many people would expect a nonrestrictive L* licence,
since most of the competitors act this way, since years. Its not
customary for webframeworks to use the strong (A)GPL. Goal should be
attracting as many implementors as possible.

my 2 cents

2012/10/23 seo-friendly-ria-web <seo-friend...@googlegroups.com>:
> I'm analyzing what could be the most suitable license for this project.
> There are two possibilities. Use a license as strong as AGPL3 to push free
> software without cost. To charge those who want to use the software in
> proprietary code. Or use a license as LGPL3 more comfortable. What do you
> think?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "seo-friendly-ria-web" group.
> To post to this group, send email to seo-friend...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> seo-friendly-ria...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/seo-friendly-ria-web?hl=en.
>
>

[Davide]

Hi Roland,

I agree with you about attracting implementors. What do you think
about offering to developer/company (with a minimum activity) in the community a no-cost
NO-AGPL version of the framework and let other commercial user don't interested
in open source to pay (can be even a cheap fee for have the right to use in proprietary code)?

[Roland Kofler]

One can try, but the license model must be easy to understand and
trust building.
Have not seen this model around, though. Is there a success story out there?

ro

2012/10/23 Davide <d...@vide.bz>:

[Davide]

Hi Roland,

good hints! Let me search responses for the questions you wrote... and then I come back again!