Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

[TW]

Maybe something like the AFPL[1] would be an option for you.  It's
certainly not an open source license by the definition of the OSI or
the FSF, but it prevents others from selling your software unless they
buy a commercial license from you.

Thomas W.

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFPL


2011/7/29 Thomas Schneider <Thomas.Schneider at thsitc.com>:
> Hello John, many thanks for your reply :-)  I do *NOT* understand the
> implications of your last paragraph, however.
>
> I would like to OPEN SOURCE the code for maintenance (by other's) , and
> would *at the same time* like
> to *earn money* out of it.  I did invest more than 8 man-year's into PP, the
>  Program Porting machine,
> and would like, as the Author, to get some payback for it's usage.
>
> As far as I understand it currently, this is NOT POSSIBLE with the OPEN
> SOURCE Scheme at all.
>
> When you could explain the implications of your last sentence (marked
> below), you will be more than welcome!
>
> Thomas Schneider.
> ===================================================================================.
> Am 29.07.2011 00:24, schrieb John Cowan:
>>
>> Thomas Schneider scripsit:
>>
>>> 1.) I would like to OPEN SOURCE the source code there on www.Kenai.com
>>> 2.) I would like to make the usage FREE for individuals, with a
>>> limited amount of source code processed (say 5.000 thru 10.000
>>> Code-Lines maximum)
>>>
>>> *but*
>>>
>>> 3.) I would like to CHARGE a Licence Fee for commerical user's, e.g.
>>> big companies (mainly, IBM Mainframe Customer's) using those tool's to
>>> port their existing software from PL/I and/or COBOL to Java.
>>
>> This is not possible under any open-source license, as all open-source
>> licenses are available to all, without discrimination of any kind.
>>
>> You can write a proprietary license (or, in practice, pay a lawyer to do
>> so) that imposes any knd of restrictions you want, and not provide the
>> source to anyone who hasn't explicitly accepted your license.
>>
>
>
>> If your product is really of commercial value, companies will be happy
>> to pay you to provide support, customization, and maintenance without
>> any need for anything but an open-source license on the code itself.
>>
> Quote: ... without any need for anything but an open source licence of the
> code itself.
>
> This paragraph I don't understand!.
>
> I do have some partner's around the world who might be interested to
> CONTRIBUTE
> to my software. In order to be able to do so, I would like to OPEN SOURCE
> the Software on KENAI,
> but SELL it !
>
> As far as I can see it now, this is a *contradiction* per se. Isn't it ??
>
> Thomas.
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.com)
>