I am currently developing a small open source project and would like to make sure I got the licensing right. I am pretty new to the open source model. I have benefited from it on a personal level for years. I can't help but want to make sure that my project is open to users who contribute to the project and not just free loaders. Of course this isn't to restrict usage of people experimenting with the project for personal reasons or students or anything of the like. I am thinking more of companies that might profit from too weak licensing.

Through research I understand that using a strongly protective GPL or an AGPL license distributed freely with the project combined with a more permissive license sold to companies who have different needs might be a good solution. Even though the AGPL is kind of frowned upon even as far as being banned by Google.

In any case I realize that this might be an opinionated subject matter so let me keep this to a specific cadre. I recently stumbled upon a less common solution that is license zero. However, I can't find a lot of information on it's compatibility with other licenses. My question is now, Is the zero license a good fit for an open source project? More specifically is it compatible with current business models or licenses like the MIT open license or GPL license. Would someone be able to integrate my code in their open source project? Inversely can I use open source libraries that operate under commonly found licenses in my project?

Also I understand pretty well, from such posts, that I essentially can't override a clause of a license from a codebase I use in my project. So in the case of dual licensing I can use a GPLv2 codebase in my open source version but can't use the same codebase when I sell a closed source version of my project for instance am I right? More precisely does the GPLv2 forbid such forms of dual licensing? I guess the only work around for me or a company interested in my code for proprietary projects is to get a license agreement or waiver of some kind?

I am currently developing a small open source project and would like to make sure I got the licensing right. I am pretty new to the open source model. I have benefited from it on a personal level for years. I can't help but want to make sure that my project is open to users who contribute to the project and not just free loaders. Of course this isn't to restrict usage of people experimenting with the project for personal reasons or students or anything of the like. I am thinking more of companies that might profit from too weak licensing.

Through research I understand that using a strongly protective GPL or an AGPL license distributed freely with the project combined with a more permissive license sold to companies who have different needs might be a good solution. Even though the AGPL is kind of frowned upon even as far as being banned by Google.

In any case I realize that this might be an opinionated subject matter so let me keep this to a specific cadre. I recently stumbled upon a less common solution that is License Zero. However, I can't find a lot of information on it's compatibility with other licenses. My question is now, is License Zero a good fit for an open source project? More specifically is it compatible with current business models or licenses like the MIT open license or GPL license. Would someone be able to integrate my code in their open source project? Inversely can I use open source libraries that operate under commonly found licenses in my project?

Also I understand pretty well, from such posts, that I essentially can't override a clause of a license from a codebase I use in my project. So in the case of dual licensing I can use a GPLv2 codebase in my open source version but can't use the same codebase when I sell a closed source version of my project for instance am I right? More precisely does the GPLv2 forbid such forms of dual licensing? I guess the only work around for me or a company interested in my code for proprietary projects is to get a license agreement or waiver of some kind?

I am currently developing a small open source project and would like to make sure I got the licensing right. I am pretty new to the open source model. I have benefited from it on a personal level for years. I can't help but want to make sure that my project is open to users who contribute to the project and not just free loaders. Of course this isn't to restrict usage of people experimenting with the project for personal reasons or students or anything of the like. I am thinking more of companies that might profit from too weak licensing.

Through research I understand that using a strongly protective GPL or an AGPL license distributed freely with the project combined with a more permissive license sold to companies who have different needs might be a good solution. Even though the AGPL is kind of frowned upon even as far as being banned by Google.

In any case I realize that this might be an opinionated subject matter so let me keep this to a specific cadre. I recently stumbled upon a less common solution that is license zero I however can't find a lot of information on it's compatibility with other licenses. My question is now, Is the zero license a good fit for an open source project  ? More specifically is it compatible with current business models or licenses like the MIT open license or GPL license. Would someone be able to integrate my code in their open source project  ? Inversely can I use open source libraries that operate under commonly found licenses in my project  ?

Also I understand pretty well, from such posts, that I essentially can't override a clause of a license from a codebase I use in my project. So in the case of dual licensing I can use a GPLv2 codebase in my open source version but can't use the same codebase when I sell a closed source version of my project for instance am I right? More precisely does the GPLv2 forbid such forms of dual licensing  ? I guess the only work around for me or a company interested in my code for proprietary projects is to get a license agreement or waiver of some kind  ?

I am currently developing a small open source project and would like to make sure I got the licensing right. I am pretty new to the open source model. I have benefited from it on a personal level for years. I can't help but want to make sure that my project is open to users who contribute to the project and not just free loaders. Of course this isn't to restrict usage of people experimenting with the project for personal reasons or students or anything of the like. I am thinking more of companies that might profit from too weak licensing.

Through research I understand that using a strongly protective GPL or an AGPL license distributed freely with the project combined with a more permissive license sold to companies who have different needs might be a good solution. Even though the AGPL is kind of frowned upon even as far as being banned by Google.

In any case I realize that this might be an opinionated subject matter so let me keep this to a specific cadre. I recently stumbled upon a less common solution that is license zero. However, I can't find a lot of information on it's compatibility with other licenses. My question is now, Is the zero license a good fit for an open source project? More specifically is it compatible with current business models or licenses like the MIT open license or GPL license. Would someone be able to integrate my code in their open source project? Inversely can I use open source libraries that operate under commonly found licenses in my project?

Also I understand pretty well, from such posts, that I essentially can't override a clause of a license from a codebase I use in my project. So in the case of dual licensing I can use a GPLv2 codebase in my open source version but can't use the same codebase when I sell a closed source version of my project for instance am I right? More precisely does the GPLv2 forbid such forms of dual licensing? I guess the only work around for me or a company interested in my code for proprietary projects is to get a license agreement or waiver of some kind?

I am currently developing a small open source project and would like to make sure I got the licensing right. I am pretty new to the open source model. I have benefited from it on a personal level for years. I can't help but want to make sure that my project is open to users who contribute to the project and not just free loaders. Of course this isn't to restrict usage of people experimenting with the project for personal reasons or students or anything of the like. I am thinking more of companies that might profit from too weak licensing.

Through research I understand that using a strongly protective GPL or an AGPL license distributed freely with the project combined with a more permissive license sold to companies who have different needs might be a good solution. Even though the AGPL is kind of frowned upon even as far as being banned by Google.

In any case I realize that this might be an opinionated subject matter so let me keep this to a specific cadre. I recently stumbled upon a less common solution that is the zero license I however can't find a lot of information on it's compatibility with other licenses. My question is now, Is the zero license a good fit for an open source project ? More specifically is it compatible with current business models or licenses like the MIT open license or GPL license. Would someone be able to integrate my code in their open source project ? Inversely can I use open source libraries that operate under commonly found licenses in my project ?

Also I understand pretty well, from such posts, that I essentially can't override a clause of a license from a codebase I use in my project. So in the case of dual licensing I can use a GPLv2 codebase in my open source version but can't use the same codebase when I sell a closed source version of my project for instance am I right? More precisely does the GPLv2 forbid such forms of dual licensing ? I guess the only work around for me or a company interested in my code for proprietary projects is to get a license agreement or waiver of some kind ?

I am currently developing a small open source project and would like to make sure I got the licensing right. I am pretty new to the open source model. I have benefited from it on a personal level for years. I can't help but want to make sure that my project is open to users who contribute to the project and not just free loaders. Of course this isn't to restrict usage of people experimenting with the project for personal reasons or students or anything of the like. I am thinking more of companies that might profit from too weak licensing.

Through research I understand that using a strongly protective GPL or an AGPL license distributed freely with the project combined with a more permissive license sold to companies who have different needs might be a good solution. Even though the AGPL is kind of frowned upon even as far as being banned by Google.

In any case I realize that this might be an opinionated subject matter so let me keep this to a specific cadre. I recently stumbled upon a less common solution that is license zero I however can't find a lot of information on it's compatibility with other licenses. My question is now, Is the zero license a good fit for an open source project ? More specifically is it compatible with current business models or licenses like the MIT open license or GPL license. Would someone be able to integrate my code in their open source project ? Inversely can I use open source libraries that operate under commonly found licenses in my project ?

Also I understand pretty well, from such posts, that I essentially can't override a clause of a license from a codebase I use in my project. So in the case of dual licensing I can use a GPLv2 codebase in my open source version but can't use the same codebase when I sell a closed source version of my project for instance am I right? More precisely does the GPLv2 forbid such forms of dual licensing ? I guess the only work around for me or a company interested in my code for proprietary projects is to get a license agreement or waiver of some kind ?