> You could craft your own license, but a license that forbids commercial
> usage is not a FOSS license by either FSF or OSI standards. you do that
and
> call your software OSS, you better avoid certain people afterwards ;-)
heh :)
but, at the same time, people who nittpick over that are not
developers but politicians with an agenda that has little to do with
software engineering.
FB
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [nhibernate-
> [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 20:28
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
>
> > > 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=
