many OSS developers are both. and to a degree, I understand it. a lot of thought has been put into the FOSS thing. now if anybody can claim any arbitrary license to be FOSS, that's just destroying a trade mark.
________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 22:11 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > You could craft your own license, but a license that forbids commercial > usage is not a FOSS license by either FSF or OSI standards. you do that and > call your software OSS, you better avoid certain people afterwards ;-) heh :) but, at the same time, people who nittpick over that are not developers but politicians with an agenda that has little to do with software engineering. FB > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [nhibernate- > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 20:28 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) > > > > 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=
