So I am making this library and I wish to monetize it, I got my first client for it and I am already rolling a product made with it, yet I don't have a license yet.
The thing more than just a library is an entire toolbox, includes a lot of server code, client code, and toolkits to build and deploy the application, and interaction with other libraries (mainly MIT), but also proprietary APIs (this is allowed in their licenses, API keys needed, so that's a non-issue).
My purpose is:
- If you make something with it and (both client and server) are opensource I don't care.
- If you modify the source library it must be on the same opensource terms.
- Assuming business with competition aren't interested in making their own code opensource and GPL (as anyone else can then copy them) these will need to buy a proprietary enabled license from me (the copyright holder).
- If you are a small business/startup and have 0 money but also don't wish to make your code opensource then you can get a free proprietary license for a limited number of users.
- If you are a business that wants to use the library to develop products for others, you can do so freely, however to make a closed source product for another person requires either the free proprietary enabled license (same terms as #4) or the paid proprietary enabled license (same terms as #3)
I am trying to achieve some balance here.
What about GPLv3 GPLv2 and AGPLv2 would they work too?... I prefer less restrictive as long as they give advantages to the purpose, I want to create value, make something useful, but I have to eat too.