On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Patrick <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12-10-03 05:50 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > > Another attempt at a summary, and a plea for focussed clarification. > > Patrick has written/will write two pieces of software, A and B. > Patrick's wishes: > > Users of A do not pay for using it. > Users of B know that Patrick wrote B. > > Patrick's assumptions: > > His wishes are best realised by his choice of software licenses. > People need significant help finding gratis copies, especially when > non-gratis copies exist. > People need significant help finding the original author of the software > they are using. > > Much of the rest of this thread is trolling. Please don't continue it. > > Patrick, do you have any other relevant wishes or assumptions, or is this an > accurate summary? > > Everyone else, write specific ways to realise his wishes and/or specific > inaccuracies in his assumptions or faults of reasoning therefrom. > > > > this is perfect, thank you. > > Please help. I am not trying to troll, I am asking for help
Release your software under AGPLv3 and *actively enforce* its conditions. No license is going to stop people from creating scams around software, if that software is worth anything. Including no license -- consider all the scams around "free" proprietary software. You have to actively enforce. The other thing you have to do is actively promote non-scammy availability. Not releasing under a real free software license is massively harmful to the latter. But yeah, if you think exploitation is a greater threat than obscurity and that a semi-closed license will effectively stop exploitation, please ask for help elsewhere. :) Mike
