I'm leaning toward going with gplv3 but...

[Bani]

Your first sentence is more LGPL oriented, while the second sentence is AGPL
oriented, which are the two opposite sides of the spectrum when talking
about FSF licenses.

The license to force the licensee to make the source available to people
that only use it as a service is AGPL, but I don't think that would work
with letting the developers keep their extensions in house. If they are
going to distribute the code they use to provide the service (and they must
do that according to AGPL), I believe (and this is just my opinion, not a
lawyer, no warranties and all that) that they'd have to distribute the whole
thing. Anyway, even if the wouldn't have, if they didn't want to they'd be
scared about it and your framework wouldn't be as attractive for them.

So I think it probably would be better to go with LGPL to make sure as much
as possible that they could write extensions and do whatever they wanted
with them (well, actually, Mozilla Public License is a lot clearer about the
"original code" issue) and forget about forcing them to make the code
available. You could just ask nicely :)

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Aaron Aichlmayr <waterfoul at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm thinking of going with gplv3 but I have a few questions first that I
> don't care that I get "no warantee" answers as they approach the legal side.
> First I wanted to have an extension system where the extension devs are
> encouraged to share but are allowed to keep their extensions in house as
> long as they did not edit the original code. Second I wanted to allow people
> to have paid services for hosting this framework but any users are welcome
> to download a copy of the source themselves. Would the gpl allow these or
> should I go with the lgpl
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20090806/7cdeae0a/attachment.html>