Philip Goetz wrote:
On 8/28/06, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An assumption that some may challenge is that AGI
s...
source license retain these benefits yet be safe?
I would rather see a license which made the software free
for non-commercial use, but (unlike the GNU licenses)
stipulated terms, and methods of deciding fees that
would be binding on the software authors, so that a
company could use the software for commercial uses,
provided they paid the stipulated fees to the software
authors.
...
- Phil
The idea with the GPL is that if you want to also sell the program
commercially, you should additionally make it available under an
alternate license. Some companies have been successful in this mode.
(Trolltech comes to mind, and also, I believe, MySQL.) Descendants of
the GPL code are required to be GPL. Descendants of code acquired under
the alternate license can be whatever you choose. The limitation of
this approach is that it is common for the GPL branch to out-develop the
non-GPL branch...so you must develop quite actively. Also you must own
the copyrights to all of the code that is used. You can't add pieces
from other GPL projects. Etc.
No restrictions are placed as to what additional licenses you might
offer code for sale under that you have also offered as GPL, except for
"What can I get people to buy?". Commonly this is used to allow those
who don't wish to agree to the terms of the GPL to purchase the right to
use the code under other terms. Stipulating fees as a part of the
license is probably a bad idea.
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
