Sander van Rossen wrote: > On 8/31/07, Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I think having dual licensing with BSD/MPL is going to moot the >>> >> Im not suggesting it be dual like Indy. My suggestion was maybe that we ADD >> a BSD clause ON TOP of the MPL... that would just enforce MPL but ALSO >> require attribution to the project. >> > > Even attribution isn't -that- important to me, i'm fine with it if > it's included.. > How would the license be called then, SOL? ;) > > I'm trying to avoid commenting on this issue so that we can focus on forming the governing board, and leaving the license for next week or so. It seems we're converging on MPL anyway. But concerning the commercial aspect, I would rather suggest what MySQL, Trolltech, etc do. We would have MPL for our main license, but then charge a one-time fee and/or royalties for commercial licensing rights, under whatever closed-source EULA license they want. This would be most appropriate for companies that want to heavily modify the OS for their use, probably for embedded situations.
I had a similar discussion a month ago with William, and there was a question brought up about what legal entity would negotiate the commercial license. We do not need to worry about this currently. But given the current direction, the core board could easily form a non-profit foundation, such as BSD, Gentoo, Ubuntu, etc. who hold the code in trust. But I would continue to suggest we hold off until the board is formed. --S ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
