I'm afraid that it may end up that way for me as well, releasing what's 
acceptable to the company (and stuff I do purely as non-related side 
projects) under MIT, or not at all. ☹️

After decades never being able to show my code to the world, I do enjoy the 
openness and usefulness of the MIT license, both being able to use any MIT 
code for my commercial projects, and being able to pay forward by 
contributing myself.

On Friday, February 5, 2016 at 10:27:03 AM UTC-5, Tom Breloff wrote:
>
> 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] 
> <javascript:>> 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!).
>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to