Best licence for my software?

[David Dillard]

> -----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
proposed earlier.



> 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.

Absolutely.


 
> 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      
> http://www.reutershealth.com
> 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
>