> > Bruno's work is given for free, and if you don't share your changes back, > keep it secret behind the server, it doesn't help the Movuca project. So > for Bruno the GPL or even AGPL is a good option, as it keeps the code free > (as in freedom). >
Under a more permissive license, a smaller percentage of users will contribute changes back to the project, but you will likely get a lot more users overall, so you may still get a lot of contributions. With a strong copyleft license, like AGPL, everyone contributes changes back, but the user base will likely be much smaller. If the goal is getting more contributions back to the project, it's not clear which approach will prevail. > CMS is very different to a framework like web2py, which is only a base for > application development and could be seen as similar to a system library. > CMS is an application itself. In most cases, users would not be deploying Movuca completely unmodified, and even if they did, the whole point of the AGPL/GPL license would be moot, as there would be no modifications to release. The license issues arise exactly in the context of modifying the system. Also, I don't see any contradiction between GPL or AGPL and "commercial > intentions". Your client is paying for a customised solution and is getting > one no matter if the license is LGPL, GPL or AGPL. Under the AGPL, your client is indeed getting a custom solution -- but then your client is required to give away that custom solution to their competitors for free. Not many commercial enterprises will want to pay for the development of a custom solution that they must then give away to the public for free. > The only difference here is for Bruno and the community of people working > with him on the CMS. They might ask for the source code and benefit from > changes made by others. Someone might integrate Movuca with their own custom functionality that is specifically related to their business, which might not necessarily even be of interest to Movuca. Even in that case, though, they would be required to release their proprietary code to the public under AGPL. > GPL will prevent anyone from making a proprietary system that includes > your code (LGPL allows that). However, it would be still possible to do it > without code distribution, for example in a software as service model. Only > AGPL will prevent that, as it requires to make the source available > whenever the code is deployed on a server. > Yes, GPL is probably at least tolerable in many situations, but AGPL is likely a deal breaker for most commercial applications. Anthony
