big-j
and for never selling out.
Also, if you're not married to Python, and are looking for something really simple and easy to learn, you might try Perl's CGI::Application (along with some plug-ins).
Not always so easy.
Incidentally, the last thing the FSF is worried about is popularity, yet look at how popular GCC, Emacs, bash, and other GPL'd software is.
Licensing your software with a very liberal license may help make your software more popular with some large companies who are in a position to take advantage of it (and I suspect timing is important here as well), but I'm not so sure it makes your software popular with the developer community.
From what I've seen, projects that go GPL tend to be more community-focused, and seem to more readily gather a contributor community around them. I think contributors tend to like the idea of their contribution being free in perpetuity.
MIT-licensed projects, OTOH, tend to be mostly worked-on by their creator (again, FWICT). That is, there are fewer individuals willing to contribute code to a project which could simply be scooped up and put into some company's closed-source product. I get the impression that MIT-licensed projects are always looking to be popular, and feel entitled to be so, since users can basically do whatever they want with the code.
A lot of careful thought by lawyers, the community, and the FSF has gone into the most current GPL. I'd suggest that it's worth considering.
I trust my friend. But I've also seen money do strange things to people, and was wondering what the options are.
Thanks.
I routinely notice when someone is smarter than me, or has a better memory than me, or who can visualize complex logical structures better than me. It sucks (for me, in this instance), but that's just the way it is.
I know one successful fellow who used no paperwork or contract at all and everything worked out well (so far), but the "real founder" (who's name was on everything) could've easily taken him to the cleaners.