Best licence for my software?
david.dillard at veritas.com
Mon Apr 18 11:47:17 UTC 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan at reutershealth.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:58 AM
> To: David Dillard
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Best licence for my software?
> David Dillard scripsit:
> > Ah, but the open source dual license model is where the
> licensee, not
> > the licensor, determines that the licensee would like to use a
> > non-open source license (assuming one is available).
> Not so. Suppose I issue a program under the GPL but also
> offer a proprietary license for $100. Nothing says that I
> *have* to license everyone who is willing to pay $100; the
> latter is a contract and requires the consent of *both* parties.
It is so. The licensee determines if he wants to use the GPL or the
other license. Once the licensor makes a decision to provide an
alternate license (and presumably does so equitably) it's the licensee
that determines which license (s)he will use.
> > The OSD is quit specific: No discrimination against persons
> or groups
> > is allowed.
> That's interpreted to mean that everyone must get at least an
> open source license.
Yes and to be an open source license it cannot discriminate as had been
> Nothing says that some people can't get
> more favorable terms by reason of either status (i.e. being
> my cousin Fred, or a university
> student) or contract.
> IANAL, TINLA, IANTOSI.
Great, now I have a new acronym to look up (IANTOSI). ;-)
> Why are well-meaning Westerners so concerned that John Cowan
> the opening of a Colonel Sanders in Beijing means
> jcowan at reutershealth.com
> the end of Chinese culture? [...] We have had
> Chinese restaurants in America for over a century,
> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and it hasn't made us Chinese. On
> the contrary,
> we obliged the Chinese to invent chop suey.
> --Marshall Sahlins
More information about the License-discuss