Simple Public License, draft

[Signal 11]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Suppose you simply release the source under the GPL, and make it clear
> that you will permit a nontransferrable source license which fewer
> restrictions on a case by case basis?

... which really makes a mess out of things if people contribute patches
to him.  You would need a provision that says he can do what he wants
with those patches to allow dual-licensing like that (and accept the
contributions of others).  Anything else, and you pretty much defeat
the whole case for open sourcing your software in the first place.

The only way I think you could get away with something like that would
be to only accept contributions that are sent to you under BSD-style
licensing for inclusion into your dual-licensed code.

But, IANAL.

-- 
Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net
"This is ancient Greece!  They didn't have ruins yet!" -- Crow