> In your opinion, what would a fair business model be for ScientiaMobile and WURFL?
I don’t have a problem with your current business model, although I think you’ll find it hard to compete with a high quality community project that provides a similar service free of charge. On the other hand, you probably have the right skills and experience to pull it off. Having standard options for hosting companies might be a good idea.
> is there something that we can do that would be welcome by the community while not totally destructive of our business model?
The restricted set of languages supported is problematic. There are a number of popular web frameworks in Python, Ruby, etc. that are currently excluded under the licensing terms that prohibit using the data apart from the provided APIs. I think having some officially sanctioned APIs in these languages, even if they’re community-contributed, would help with this.
> How can we achieve our objective of a commercial FOSS offering that will preserve the value of open code and open data to licensees, without having to fear that someone will copy and squander our investment?
My own company maintains an open source framework and set of tools, and provides services and custom applications built on top of that. In our case, the revenue stream is from building and operating applications and services on behalf of others rather than selling licenses to the public. I doubt WURFL is suited to this sort of model.