Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

>From my perspective the open source movement started with devs and
companies sharing code for a variety of reasons before we started calling
it open source or free software or whatever.

As you say, Open Source (specifically OSI) started as a way to make the
free software philosophy more palatable to businesses.  Odd though that
source code available under non-commercial terms is often used by
companies in addition to academia.

On 8/8/11 11:58 AM, "Ben Tilly" <btilly at gmail.com> wrote:

>A piece of perspective may explain this for you.
>
>The open source movement started as a way to make free software
>acceptable to businesses.  Most people who are involved in the open
>source movement use open source software professionally inside of
>companies.  Thus attempting to block commercial use has taken you out
>of the whole point of open source software, and has made the software
>useless for most people who might otherwise want to use it.
>
>Thus commercial use is not a fringe corner case.  Either for open
>source software, or for people involved in open source software.
>
>On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
>wrote:
>> 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);>
>>>>>
>>
>>