Release comercial application's sources as GPL but with restr iction in usage

[David Dillard]

Ah, you're quite correct.

So, there's at least one license out there that allows this.


--- David



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ryan [mailto:david at einet.com.au] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 5:41 PM
> To: David Dillard
> Cc: 'Chris Yoo'; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Release comercial application's sources as GPL 
> but with restriction in usage
> 
> 
> I think the QT Public License does just what you suggest in 
> #2 and is approved by OSI.  The following clause is taken 
> directly from http://www.opensource.org/licenses/qtpl.php
> 
> 
> 3b. When modifications to the Software are released under 
> this license, 
> a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the initial 
> developer 
> of the Software to distribute your modification in future versions of 
> the Software provided such versions remain available under 
> these terms 
> in addition to any other license(s) of the initial developer.
> 
> Its because no other licenses have this clause that I am creating a 
> license which has this effect.  The QTPL is quite thin in many other 
> areas which is why it can't really be used.  I think this 
> clause creates 
> a good ground for business developers to release high quality 
> code well 
> maintained source into the open source community.
> 
> David.
> 
> > <>I don't think that can happen in most realistic scenarios.
> >
> >
> > Suppose Party A writes some software and releases it in a 
> dually licensed
> > manner, one open source, the other not.
> >
> > Party B gets the open source version, finds a bug and fixes it, 
> > contributing
> > it back to some community repository.
> >
> > Party A CANNOT then take that fix and then put it into their dually 
> > licensed
> > source base unless:
> >
> > 1. Party B expressly gives Party A permission to do so, either thru 
> > another
> > license or thru relinquishing ownership of the code (either 
> to Party A or
> > into the public domain).
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2. The open source license Party A originally used gives them the 
> > ability to
> > do so.
> >
> >
> > I'm not aware of any open source license that meets #2 
> above. Thus Party B
> > would have to relinquish ownership.
> >
> 
>