For the second project I think GPL is the right license: by law anyone using its code or
part of the code must show the "based upon $project created by $you" line, also
you can get revenue by both selling binaries (with the source attached) and providing
support.
For the first one GPL is also good as no one can legally "close" the code.
Also keep in mind that FSF approved licenses are about freedom not about money ("free as in
free speech" not "free as in free beer").
---
Hi Marco
Here is the thing though.... Most parents don't know what close or open
sourced even is. If I distribute it as a close source application and
have a notice pops up that states this software is only to be
distributed free of charge, if you paid for it contact so-and-so so that
we can defend your rights. That ought to be a deterrent.
Also keep in mind that FSF approved licenses are about freedom not
about money ("free as in free speech" not "free as in free beer").
I do know about this but I don't think that FSF licences protect
communities only end users.
It's not okay to say that anyone in Indonesia can use this software for
whatever use they desire and never have to give back anything but but it
is okay to say that Walmart can do this, if they only use it internally.
Yet Walmart is economically larger then this country of 237M people:
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0718-worlds_largest.html
GPL is very wrong for me, I hope to find other licences that will
protect the charitable nature of the first project and protects my right
to be acknowledged in the second project. The GPL will do this to some
degree in the licence but how many end users read the licence, I want
something that will have to be displayed to them
