Quoting Qian Hong (fract...@gmail.com): > Just want to share a link of 'business source license', it sounds > closed to my original though about 'delay-able open source license', > but it is known not OSD-compliant. > > http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/06/26/1552215/monty-suggests-a-business-friendly-license-that-trends-open > > Hopefully you would like it :)
Thanks, Qian. I've only just skim-read Monty Widenius and Linus Nyman's two pieces[1] on the subject, so: There's actually a long history of this, and I'd say it's already at least a familiar if not well-accepted general concept, i.e., Aladdin Ghostscript was produced under just such a licensing regime for many, many years[2], and resulted in release of improvements to GNU Ghostscript that might never otherwise have occurred. (Peter Deutsch's Aladdin Software used for that purpose what he called the Aladdin Free Public License, which, it should be pointed out, was _not_ a free-software licence, explicitly denying conveying of a licence for commercial use. Deutsch maintaining that proprietary branch from around 1990 to 2006.) Like Deutsch's naming scheme, there is some whiff of propaganda about Monty's, i.e., the assumption that business implies proprietary, but, hey, that's Monty for you. [1] http://monty-says.blogspot.fi/2013/06/business-source-software-license-with.html http://timreview.ca/article/691 [2] http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Printing-HOWTO/ghostscript.html -- Cheers, Being die-hard loyal to a company is like being in an intimate rela- Rick Moen tionship with a brick. The brick cares nothing for you. The brick rick@linux will only cause you pain when it forgets about you. The brick serves mafia.com only its interests, and nothing else is of consequence. --Mackieman _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
