Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

[Thomas Schneider]

Hello there,
     1.) Sorry I did raise this discussion on this thread.
     2.) I've already decided I'll put up a *new* ThSITC Licence.
     3.) I'll deliver my source on www.KENAI.com  (projects PP, LOGOS, 
ReyC, ...) as soon as I can.

Meanwhile, I would like to *thank you* for all your advise and assistance.

My current feeling is, that *author's* of a *software* should get a fair 
share (50 % of sales)

Contributor's shall get a fair share (80 % of work contributed)

Sales Agent's shall get a fair share of any sales (50 % of sales)

... And exactly that will my licence say, most probably !

I'll simply open it (i.e. publish the source) and then .....

.... we will see what's happening ;-)

Best greetings from Vienna, Austria,

Thomaqs Schneider.

Am 09.08.2011 19:37, schrieb Russell McOrmond:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H.<Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>  wrote:
>> I would disagree with your assertion that nearly all software is source
>> available
>    While the source has been lost in some cases, it is nearly always a
> question of under what licensing/contractual terms source code is
> available to people beyond its author.
>
>    I didn't say "available to you and me", meaning that both of us
> would be willing to be bound by that specific contract -- that is an
> entirely separate conversation.  I'm just saying that source code
> being available to a wide variety of people other than the author
> shouldn't be considered special.
>
>> and presumably that you think that source available under
>> non-commercial terms has no merit.  Perhaps because I'm in a more academic
>> environment that I view this differently.  As we are a non-profit lab that
>> does research there's more code out there for us to leverage than for most
>> corporate developers.
>    You may also be aware that whether "academic" environments are
> non-commercial is an ongoing legal and political discussion.
>
>    As educational institutions request royalties on the outputs of the
> work within institutions, more people are questioning the
> justifications for royalty-free inputs.  This not only questions
> whether your academic work qualifies as NC for the purposes of an NC
> license agreement, but also whether related work should be eligible
> for educations exceptions to copyright/etc.   I am actively involved
> in the copyright reform process here in Canada, and there are many
> people (myself included) who question institutional exceptions to
> Copyright.
> http://billc32.ca/faq#education
>
>> You might note that the NC clause doesn't cause much conceptual confusion
>> in the CC world.
>    Others have already commented on this.  There is a wide set of
> incompatible interpretations of what NC really means.
>


-- 
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.com)