|Subject:||Re: [libreplanet-discuss] help with FSF incompatible but community oriented licence(s)|
|Date:||Wed, 3 Oct 2012 16:43:09 -0400|
It seems like you're complaining that you'll have to face competition. Yes it's hard to compete with larger companies but maybe you should cross that bridge when you come to it.
This is a hard problem that other projects face as you've pointed out. They simply issue warnings about downloading from scammers and that's the best you can do I think.
As i mentioned most companies will hesitate to sell or modify free software so you can negotiate a proprietary license agreement with them that's favorable to you (i.e. displaying credit to you )
If you feel the various open source and free software licenses out there aren't good enough for you then that's okay, pick or write up a license that's good for you.
Hopefully you choose a license that provides freedom to both developers and users despite potential competition from larger businesses.
Since you are distributing the code yourself you can offer the binary and sources for free. If a competitor wants to sell your software it is *still* available from your own website.
Yes but this is where the advertising dollars matter. If no one knows it originally came from me, I look like the copycat.
You're trying to clamp down on competition and that can't be done with the gpl.
I really don't like the GPL ! The only family of licences that are worse are BSD and friends. GPL is good to the end user, that's great but hurtful to charitable oriented communities and small businesses that can't compete with large ones. BSD is even worse as it allows the derivative code to hurt end users too. Both make developers unpaid employees of mega corporations like Apple and Google.
Yes there is, again advertising dollars.
The nice thing is that any competitors will have to offer an enticing value-add to the product and make the source code for that available to others under the gpl. Or they have to work really hard and spend money on a sales team to convince parents to buy their version of your software (of course their version will be the same as your software, it would be too expensive to both enhance the product and also sell it).
There's no reason to be fearful of this.
You will be credited for the software you create in the copyrights file or the license file or in every source code file. If you use the gpl then any changes someone makes have to be licensed under the gpl as well.
Only the competitors forking my code will see this
The only way to guarantee that your name will appear prominently in the user interface is to use a different license when dealing with businesses.
If I offer two streams what's to stop the business from using the non-commercial version?
Most businesses will not like the idea of selling or modifying gpl software so they'll be open to paying for a different license to be used and in that contract you can include the clause that credit to you must be displayed in the user interface.
I am not so special that they have to go to me.
I do appreciate the feedback, sorry if this is too negative. This thread is really a last ditch effort. I don't want to go closed source but FSF licences don't work for me. I am hoping to find another source included license that will work.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|