Dual licensing

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves at netcabo.pt> writes:

> I'm only trying to add to that the requirement that a part of any
> generated revenue is payed to the authors (if they want). This should
> be completely orthogonal to the open source requirements, and hence
> unhurtful of them, but I'm having technical problems. Not
> unsurmountable I believe, but hard.

It is not orthogonal at all.  When software is open source, it means
that anybody can fork it at will, without having to pay.  Open source
means freedom for users, including freedom from royalty payments.

What you are looking for is not a bad thing, but it is not open
source.

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