Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

[Karl Fogel]

"Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu> writes:
>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).

This is just a terminology question.

The term "open source" (in software context) was coined as a synonym for
free software.  I'm not aware of the phrase "open source" being in
general use at any point before then to refer to software for which
source code is merely visible but not freely licensed.

Of course, anyone can choose to use the words "open source" to mean
anything they want.  But this forum is hosted by an organization that
has a very specific & clear definition of what "open source" means.  The
"open source" licenses this forum was created to discuss are licenses
that guarantee a specific set of freedoms, including (among other
things) commercial freedoms.

So the inclusiveness you refer is not part of this list's mission,
that's all.  You're certainly free to create a mailing list that covers
the topics you think need to be covered -- if you spot common themes
among independent software developers, and you'd like to help them with
those themes, go for it!

But *this forum* was not chartered for that.  It was chartered to help
people understand and use open source licenses, where "open source" is
defined as according to http://opensource.org/docs/osd .

It's not a matter of "inclusiveness".  It's just that you're looking in
the wrong place for something.  We're here to discuss "open source"
licenses, using a widely-accepted definition of the term.  The thing
you're talking about we might call "visible source" or "non-commercial
source access" or something.  If you start calling it "open source"
here, that'll just confuse other people on this list, because they
already have a definition of what "open source" means.

Anyway, changing the names of things doesn't change what they are.  Now
that you know what we mean when we say "open source", you'll be easily
able to tell whether something is on-topic for this list hosted at
"opensource.org".

I don't mean for this to sound standoffish, and hope it doesn't come out
that way.  I just don't want easily resolveable terminology issues to
cause confusion about the intended purpose of this forum.

Best,
-Karl

>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);>
>>>>