Fw: Open source + commercial

Steve Lhomme steve.lhomme at free.fr
Sat Sep 15 08:56:35 UTC 2001

As I told you privately, your idea of "If the terms and conditions of this
license are not acceptable to you, you must obtain a different license for
the software" is very good IMHO.

It's the key to dual-licensing. And I haven't seen any mention of
dual-licensing on opensource.org :(

That's what Trolltech use to have their softwares OSI-approved, while being
able to force companies who want to sell closed softwares to pay them in
retribution (which can help Qt to grow even faster and bigger). I think it's
completely in the open philosophy. Even more than a simple LGPL or BSD (for
example) because the 'competition' between the commercial world and the
non-commercial (work in your part-time on a project) is unfair/biased. I
think that's a good way of taking advantage (for the end-user) of both

 Now my question is : what OSI-approved can be used in dual-license with
another commercial license ? I know that MPL can be mixed (id that correct
english ?) with GPL, but what about the others and what about other licenses
? A simple table with crosses where the mix work could help ;)

| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Abe Kornelis" <abe at bixoft.nl>
| To: "Ravicher, Daniel B." <DRavicher at brobeck.com>
| Cc: <license-discuss at opensource.org>
| Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 5:43 PM
| Subject: Re: Open source + commercial
| | Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
| | >
| | > Not to be sarcastic, but good luck trying to delineate commercial from
| non.
| | -- There's a relatively easy way around that one: the usual commercial
| |    distributors guard their source code as their own holy grail.
| |    So the Open Source License would be applicable to anyone wishing to
| |    use his software for code that is either not distributed at all,
| |    or that is distributed under an OSI-approved license. Anyone else
| |    will have to acquire a closed license to legally use his software.
| |
| |    The distinction as to how the 'derived' software is distributed
| |    is much easier to make than the distinction between commercial and
| |    non-commercial.
| |
| |    I'm not a lawyer, certainly not with regard to american peculiarities
| |    of law, but this is the approach I chose on my Open Source License.
| |    It has not yet been offered for review, as I feel it takes some
| |    more thinking and tinkering to mature. Plus I feel *very* hesitant
| |    to add yet another license to the list of licenses pending for
| |    certification...
| |
| |    Since the matter is under discussion anyway, feel free to take
| |    a look at http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm
| |    All comments are welcome.
| |
| | Regards, Abe.
| | --
| | Abe F. Kornelis, B.V. Bixoft
| | Het Jaagpad 63, 3461 HA Linschoten
| | The Netherlands
| | phone: +31-6-22755401
| |
| | To visit our website:
| | either: http://www.bixoft.com
| |     or: http://www.bixoft.nl
| |
| | --
| | license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
| |

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list