Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

[Thomas Schneider]

Hello Fernando,
    1.) thanks for your INSIGHT's
    2.) I will DEFINITELY *go another way*
    3.) I will DEFINE (most probably) a NEW licence Type:

a) OPENING my source
b) DEFINING the LICENCE issues, making a *fair share* commercial model.

When this is not actually conforming to OSS or whatever rules:

I will NOT take care. Sorry to say.

What I will try is to make some (maybe new) rules, where every 
contributor and/or sales agent
does get a fair share (and me, as well, sorry to say)

Business is Business (as usual)

Thomas Schneider
CEO
ThSITC It Consulting KG

Authorized IBM ISV (Independent Software Vendor)
==============================================================================
Am 31.07.2011 00:14, schrieb Fernando Cassia:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 17:24, Thomas Schneider
> <Thomas.Schneider at thsitc.com>  wrote:
>> Whar do you think/say?
> Thomas,
>
> I think I have told you many times what I would do:
>
> You should mimic what Oracle has done with Virtualbox. Open source one
> part of the code (basically the parser and rexx and java language
> definitions), and place additional code NOT as open source as
> "plug-ins" or "extension packs" targetting different languages that
> you do NOT open source.
>
> That way you´d have one basic "community version" release covering,
> say, rexx and java only, and any additional languages (PL/I, COBOL
> etc) that corporations are more likely to use, as part of the
> "extension pack" with a traditional propietary license which you could
> then SELL (actually a set of additional files that complement the open
> source parser).
>
> That is how _I_ would do things. That doesn´t mean it´s the perfect
> approach, sure. It´s up to you to decide.
> FC
>


-- 
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.com)