When "free" isn't

[brendonhatcher]

Hi

I am seeing an increasing number of extensions listed as "Other open source / Free license" when in fact they are not.

The most common example is where the developer lists a single extension that comes in two versions (e.g. Lite and Pro).  In these cases, the lite is free, foss, gnu/gpl etc, but the pro is not.

Surely extension developers should be required to list the two versions separately (like many do anyway)?

The second example, which REALLY bugs me is where the extension is free, but only for non-commercial sites.  The reason this bugs me is that often you only find out that you can't use the extension when you get to the licence agreement for the download.

As I don't have an extension listed, I don't know if these two situations are adequately covered by licence descriptions available when listing.

If not, surely we need a more fine-tuned list of options?

Regards
Brendon

[ot2sen]

Hi brendonhatcher,

Thanks for your input on this matter.
Could be that we might have to evaluate the list of license options.
Also developers are asking for a more fine tune list as they one available might not match perfectly.

Added for internal discussion list 

[rickyreter]

UMMM...a bit like *removed extension name* its version 1.32..something  but 1.4. is only available to sponcers at 50euros ithink this is a rip off??


Mod Note Lorenzo: I have edited out the name of the Extensions since we want to avoid wall of shame posts.

From our forum rules -  http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,65.0.html :

• This is not the place to settle a commercial disagreement for custom development or to be a 'wall of shame'. Any posts deemed to be of this nature will be removed. Settle your disputes in private please.
  

[LorenzoG]

Well, each developer must try to find his business model. In this case, the developer offers a fully functional extension for free. But he has said that the latest version is only available for paying members. He will release version 1.4 for free when 1.5 is available.

I wonder why this business model should be worse than a completely commercial licence there you have to pay for the extension nevertheless of version? In this case, we are able to download and use an older version for free, if we don't want to pay. You can also find a similar extension that is released under GPL if you don't like the developers business model.

[brendonhatcher]

Hi all

Instead of debating the business case for commercial extensions, can we rather put together a list of suggested new licence forms:

1. Free & commercial versions
2. Free for non-profit

any others?

Regards
Brendon

[dcsweb]

1. Free & commercial versions
2. Free for non-profit

agreed on that. We have a component that is now completely free to use, but if you want the advanced integrations you need to purchase a license. So ours is listed as 'commercial' for the component. 'free & commercial' would better suite our current model.
Thanks!