Underfunding or why I am not interested

[anatoly techtonik]

Hi,

It is just my own personal opinion. I like the goal and the intention, and
I was interested to contribute to the software (it doesn't mean that I'll do
it though).

I am researching the topic of accounting for my own private purposes,
so I thought that maybe I can borrow and reuse some components for
my system. However, the choice of license (AGPL) is not something
I'd like to deal with. It is not even about money or commercial use - it
is about the limited space in my head, so the preference is given to
less restrictive bricks. My favourite license so far is CC0 + AUTHORS
reference, but that doesn't really matter. I just want you to consider this
argument when marketing software conservancy for such generally
useful tools. Software is live only until there are people who understand
how it works.

Another thing about CC0 is that it can attract commercial interest and
start ups who may reuse the base code and close the funding goals.
If your budgeting is right, NPO will still get their base version and you
increase chance for contributing back anyway. Otherwise commercial
vendors are not interested and once you get a nice prototype which is
commercially attractive, they will redo your double job on top of ledger
to sell it. They could share at least the design.

What are you protecting from with AGPL?
-- 
anatoly t.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/npo-accounting/attachments/20140116/baa40c4f/attachment.html>