David Bovill wrote:
2009/10/20 Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
How viable is a dual license scheme if one hopes to derive revenue from
licensees? And how exactly does one go about it?
That's exactly what I've proposed Richard! It's fairly straight forwards,
I've checked it with the FOSS people in Europe, but have a few twists to
make it work a little simpler and more flexibly. Simply put the GPL license
a sused on an interpreted language virally affects the openness of the
script, and does not have implications for the engine. What this means in
practice is that GPL licensed Rev code can be used freely by anyone, but not
compiled into a protected stack. As such all RevTalk scripts distributed as
part of an app should be made publicly available, including any libraries or
code supplied by the developer - this encourages the feedback to the
community.
However, a developer wishing to have full access to the code and to release
protected applications, can do so by taking out a commercial (dual license).
The business model I am proposing, is that the collectively owned
organisation would license this code for an annual fee entitling access to
all the communities code in closed commericial applications. This money woud
go into a central bank account, and be redistributed to developers working
on open source project deemed to be of importance to the community.
It is important that this is a legal entity, not just for fund raising
issues, but also for licensing reasons. In order to release all code dual
licensed it helps if there is one copyright holder, and this copyright
holder should be collectively owned and empowered to create commercial
licenses to the benefit of the community. The Parnership structure I am
proposing protects this as it is based on Partnership law of one partner one
vote, and allows informal agreements (such as those signed off on the web
site) to be taken into account by the judge - thus offering a more flexible
and lower cost option as compared to traditional contract based licensing.
Great stuff, David. More than just a grand vision, it appears well
thought out on many levels.
One thing I don't understand with GPL'd code, though:
What if rather than contributing, someone wanted to drive traffic to
their own site by forking the project and enhancing a new version of it?
Are there any ways to ensure that a common pool doesn't get fragmented
like that?
Also: Would a Rev stack need to use LGPL to maintain a clear distinction
from the engine, or is GPL sufficiently clear on that?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
