Must publish vs. must supply

[John Cowan]

Chris F Clark scripsit:

> As a vendor of
> proprietary software, I would like an open source license that
> prevents or atleast substantially "discourages" commercial users who
> wish to use it for closed source applications, but allows them to use
> it when developing open source applications.
> 
> This would allow us to give away our library in open source form.
> Thus, increasing the supply of open source materials, while still
> preserving our ability to derive our revenues from commercial
> customers (even if that revenue might drop).

Sure, I'm all for that.  Offer a GPLed or OSLed version and a commercial
one, then.  Just make sure if anyone sends you patches that you get
them to sign over their copyright ownership of the patches.
This is what Sleepycat Software (http://www.sleepycat.com) does quite
successfully.

> And, yes to answer an ealier question from John Cowan, we would like a
> license with legal teeth to compell that open source usage, 

Certainly.  I just didn't think that forcing people to *publish* their
changes to those who did not receive the original is warranted.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan at ccil.org
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
        --_The Hobbit_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3