Dual licensing

[Marius Amado Alves]

Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:

> Requiring a fee for use is certainly a restriction. It's open source if
> you charge someone a fee, but they can pass it on without anyone having
> to pay anyone anything - but if such second-hand recipients have to pay
> the original licensor money, it's not Open Source - by the letter and
> spirit of the definition.

I see. But the SDC philosophy is sort of the other way around. Nobody 
charges upstream in the distribution. Only when revenues are generated 
downstream, the shares go back up to every author. And also only then 
are the shares negotiated. In my perception this model is not against 
the spirit of open source--and probably not even against the letter.

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