Best licence for my software?

[Matthew Seth Flaschen]

Alex Bligh wrote:

> You can almost get what you want by dual licensing, say under a home
> brewed version of the MIT license (for university people only), and
> under a traditional open source license (LGPL for instance). However,
> any "changes you collect back" you will only be licensed to redistribute
> under the LGPL, rather than your academic license as in A.

A good point.  That means in effect that you can not continue that 
system using user-contributed code, which is another reason not to use 
it, in addition to the field of endevour problem, NSK.

> Note the GPL does *NOT* prevent incorporation of your code into a
> propietary program. If your code is *DISTRIBUTED* by a third party
> as part of an application, then that third party must provide source
> to the whole thing under the GPL at (essentially) no cost, to those
> to whom the application was distributed.
>
Yes, it DOES.  That's true because of the definition of proprietary and 
the purpose of the GPL.  According the FSF, the creator of the GPL, 
proprietary means, "Proprietary software is software that is not free or 
semi-free"  Therefore, because GPL-ed software is free software 
according to the FSF, and the third-party must provide source under the 
GPL, they can not created proprietary software from the code.  
Proprietary does not equal(!=) Commercial (see 
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html at the FSF)