> > The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing (we do
> that).
>
>
> any license is suitable for that, you own the code, you
decide
> how
> to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's your
> work, you
> decide.
>
>
> Actually no.
> Consider RavenDB as a good example. AGPL pretty much says that if you are
> building commercial apps, you are going to pay for the license.
> Nothing else would do that.
Of course it would, any piece of text you use as a license for
distribution and usage of the sourcecode for others which states the user
can only create non-commercial applications with the sourcecode and always
has to disclose full sourcecode will do (actually, the non-commercial remark
is enough). Remember, you own the code and you decide. Without a license,
another person isn't even legally able to download the sourcecode.
Anyway, I was talking about dual licensing conflicts. Some people
believe the dual licensing can only happen if both licenses are compatible,
as otherwise contributing is problematic. But for code owners, that is of
course a non-issue.
FB
