Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

[Thomas Schneider]

Hello all,

what I really would like to do is:

a) OPEN the SOURCE (of PP, the Program Porting Machine) there on 
www.kenai.com

I've already setup the project PP on Kenai for this (a year ago or so)

b) Permit usage for free for a LIMITED amount of SOURCE Code for

     * private usage by individual programmers
     * DEMO-purposes (I call this a DEMO Licence)

c) call for a LICENCE FEE (Licence price depends on number of original 
SOURCE Lines, may they be classic Rexx, COBOL, PL/I, and NATURAL in the 
foreseeable future)

d) Collect CONTRIBUTOR's (implementing other SOURCE and TARGET 
Languages), helping in Documentation, etc.

e) EARN Money. I spent all of my money and time for this project.

PP is MY attempt to solve the UNCOL Problem (The Universal Compiler) 
once forever.

Which I've been told on the Technical University of Vienna, that it is 
UNFEASABLE,  back in 1969, when I wrote my diploma thesis,

but have been NOT allowed to SORT on this excellent technical, but 
nowadays ancient mainframe(IBM 7790 ????), as SORTING hughe double 
sided, weighted Graph's, to determine the Chromatic Number of those 
Graph's (using tapes, those times), has been NOT allowed for Students,
only for Professors's and Assistant's. Hence, I never got my DIPLOMA :-(

End of this (my) story.

QUESTION's still are:

1.) Is there any EXISTING licence type available fulfilling my need's ?
2.) *OR*:

May I simply write this down as a "ThSITC" Licence (in a plain Text 
File)and PUBLISH the source of PP (and a couple of related products) 
there on www.KENAI.com under a 'OTHER Licence' ???

Whar do you think/say?

Thomas Schneider

Projects: PP, ReyC, LOGOS there on www.kenai.com
Project member of the NetRexx project, also now on www.KENAI.com

========================================================================
:
Am 30.07.2011 12:56, schrieb TW:
> 2011/7/30 Thomas Schneider<Thomas.Schneider at thsitc.com>:
>> My major reason for opening the source is, that you never know what's
>> happening in you own life.
>>
> Maybe you could authorize a Notar to put your software under a true
> Open Source license in case you can not maintain it any more, so
> others can then freely continue to work on it.  Until then, you could
> provide it under a non-free license (non-free in the sense of OSI and
> FSF).  This doesn't mean you have to keep your sources secret and
> don't allow anybody to contribute.  The question is whether such a
> model would be attractive enough to attract a community.
>
> Thomas W.
>


-- 
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.com)