Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Non-commercial open source licenses predate or coincide with the
development of what we now call Open Source licenses (mostly, I presume in
academia).  They may not be Open Source but they are still open source (as
in code is available).

As far as whether this actually meets the OP's desires, my impression was
that he didn't much care if individuals used his code for private projects
but if companies wanted to use his code he'd like them to pay for a
license.

That strikes me as a common theme among many independent software
developers that make up the bulk of non-corporate open source
contributors.  This is also why CC contains a non-commercial option for
content creators: Fairness.

Is it really so hard for us to be mildly inclusive?  As I stated in my
original post, once you step outside accepted Open Source dogma you're on
your own...you two guys don't even want to point folks in the right
direction.


On 8/6/11 7:07 PM, "Karl Fogel" <kfogel at red-bean.com> wrote:

>Rod Dixon <roddixon at cyberspaces.org> writes:
>>I understand the desire to be helpful to the OP, but I think it is OK
>>- if not preferable - to say to someone that we cannot help you on
>>this list given your stated objective and the purpose of this list.
>
>Seconded.
>
>This isn't a list for helping people use licenses to do whatever they
>want to do.  It's a list for helping people understand what open source
>licenes do.  Even broadly interpreted, there are still plenty of
>conversations that drift beyond that mandate, and I think we can be a
>bit more vigilant about gently nudging those off-list.  (It's fine for
>anyone to privately offer a poster consulting help, of course.)
>
>-Karl
>
>>On Aug 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, jonathon <jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2011 04:09 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>>>> My recommendation is to use the Creative Commons Attribution,
>>> Non-Commercial, Share Alike 3.0 license.
>>> 
>>> You have got to be kidding.
>>> 
>>> There are no points in common between the requirements that that
>>>license
>>> imposes, and the criteria that the OP listed.
>>> 
>>> It doesn't even meet the "pay me a royalty if you sell it" criteria
>>>that
>>> the OP wants. (It is possible to sell CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 licensed content,
>>> and be in full compliance of that license.)
>>> 
>>> jonathon
>>> -- 
>>> All emails sent to this with email address with a precedence other than
>>> bulk, or list, are forwarded to Dave Null, unread.
>>> 
>>>    * English - detected
>>>    * English
>>> 
>>>    * English
>>> 
>>> <javascript:void(0);>
>>>