4 ms·
>Can’t some random person fork the project and attempt same thing? Yep. Worse, they can fork the project, and create a proprietary version and start selling it.
by tbirdz 13y ago
>Can’t some random person fork the project and attempt same thing? Yep. Worse, they can fork the project, and create a proprietary version and start selling it.
If you released it under the GPL, then they would not legally be allowed to make a proprietary version and start selling it. Also, the GPL does not prevent you from selling your software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- e12e 13y agoSeeing as how this beverages web technologies (although it installs locally right now), AGPL might be a better choice. As long as he retains copyright, he'll be free to also sell commercial licenses if that becomes interesting/viable. That said, having the legal right to something, and being able to enforce it, isn't the same thing (just ask Adobe).
- psykovsky 13y agoThat's only because Adobe isn't in the movies business.
- e12e 13y agoYeah, that's right. Movies aren't subject to illegal downloads. /s (On a more serious note, while I'm not a supporter of the draconian DRM schemes that have been enacted into law -- and while the studios make completely ridiculous claims for damages -- implying that films aren't being copied in a way that conflicts with their licensing terms is clearly wrong)
- AlexanderDhoore 13y agoI REALLY hope he already knows this, as he's putting his career and saving on the line here. Although I don't think he should go GPL, he should at least know about the license differences.
- zef_hemel 13y agoI'm aware of the GPL, of course. I'm not a big fan of the political views behind the license.
- p4bl0 13y agoMh. Could you expand on that point? I know we are not supposed to discuss politics too much here, but I really see only benefits to the GPL, particularly in your case, and I wonder what are the opinions which make you say that.