Recommendation: Change license to less restrictive
Closed this issue · 6 comments
Would you consider changing your code to be less restrictive? I ask unfortunately after I've tweaked some of the namespaces and stuff for an upcoming PR.
Like LGPL or similar that allows for commercial use with some attribution?
I usually use Apache 2.0 or LGPL or MIT depending on how broadly I would love seeing basic building blocks of projects like this get used widespread.
I wonder which is the best possible dual license option for open source projects. I‘m not a capitalist, but I think people and companies which use open source projects for commercial purposes should pay a fair amount.
Do you know if Apache 2.0 or MIT license work in a dual license model? With dual I mean „free for non-commercial, paid for commercial“.
for commercial purposes should pay a fair amount.
Oh, don't be ridiculous, o'course this is so, in an ideal world.
Your code costs no more than 1-2$, rly, consequently commercial companies will not strain to buy a license to use, faster and easier to use JsonConvert.SerializeObject(...) 😄
Rly, less restrictive license - increase people's loyalty
So it is in your best interest to make the license more attractive and place patreon\donat-alert\etc in readme.md or use github-sponsor (you already) - who wants to 'thank' you
No, then again - this is your thing~ 🤗
So, if JsonConvert is the faster and easier option, what is the added value of ObjectDumper then? 1-2$ ok... I hire you 😂 If commercial companies make millions why do you think someone like me should not get compensated if they use my software?
Because the game is not worth candle, time spent on "registration" of license will be more expensive than writing custom dumper~
I agree, its all about tradeoffs: If your development time is less expensive than the license, write your own custom dumper.
🤗