Scott I'm curious about this as well, however I tend to think that there's no good solution. The problem isn't in an end user picking up your package (Package A) and using it commercially vs non-commercially. The problem comes when someone wants to build some sort of derivative work (Package B) and then the end user of *their* package doesn't know about the licensing issues. To resolve, then Package B needs to carry forward licenses from Package A, and the end-user of Package B has to worry about multiple layers of licensing. YUCK
Also, you run into tricky (but common) edge cases of what constitutes commercial use (though maybe someone more knowledgeable about this stuff wouldn't think they are edge cases). I personally hate dual licenses because of the mental headache that ensues, which is why I've been either releasing my code as MIT or not at all. If you come up with an easy-to-manage solution, please let me know. On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Scott Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm curious about how one could release packages for use with Julia such > that they would be free for non-commercial use (under GPL maybe?) but also > available with a paid license for commercial use. > > Has anybody else done this? > > As much as possible, I'd like to release things under the MIT license, > however, there are many things that might be useful to other Julians, that > they (the company I'm consulting for) don't want to give away for free to a > commercial competitor (we need to eat also!). > > >
