Thanks for your comments, Joe. Please let me know how OSI responds to your license questions.
I'd like to make one other comment on dual licensing. I support that as a commercial business strategy. But the only practical dual licensing strategies for a licensor that makes sense to me are choices between the GPL or AGPL and a complex (and perhaps more profitable) commercial license. Your "FreeAndFair" choice between the GPL and the BSD – assuming it is a fair dual licensing choice and not, as in your license, a discriminatory provision between categories of users – presents an obvious choice for a licensee to make: The BSD is always a better license than the GPL. I am surprised by offers at GitHub and elsewhere of open source software to the public under "either the BSD or the GPL". Take the BSD! It is fully compatible with the GPL anyway. Always take the more generous offer of software! I'm also copying some friends at OSI, but I'm not copying your email. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Cell: 707-478-8932 From: Joe Kiniry [mailto:kin...@freeandfair.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 10:55 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: Brent Turner <turnerbre...@gmail.com>; Alan Dechert <dech...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: FreeAndFair license <snip>
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
