It is accurate in theory, but in practice, choosing a non standard license has a lot of implications. A lot of people wouldn't even look at your code if you don't use a standard license.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Frans Bouma <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing (we do > > that). > > > > > > any license is suitable for that, you own the code, you > decide > > how > > to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's your > > work, you > > decide. > > > > > > Actually no. > > Consider RavenDB as a good example. AGPL pretty much says that if you are > > building commercial apps, you are going to pay for the license. > > Nothing else would do that. > > Of course it would, any piece of text you use as a license for > distribution and usage of the sourcecode for others which states the user > can only create non-commercial applications with the sourcecode and always > has to disclose full sourcecode will do (actually, the non-commercial > remark > is enough). Remember, you own the code and you decide. Without a license, > another person isn't even legally able to download the sourcecode. > > Anyway, I was talking about dual licensing conflicts. Some people > believe the dual licensing can only happen if both licenses are compatible, > as otherwise contributing is problematic. But for code owners, that is of > course a non-issue. > > FB > > >
