David Bovill wrote:
Creative Commons (CC) is not advised for code as it was not designed for it
legally speaking. Some people use it (mainly as there is no FOSS license I
know of which says "non-commercial"), but it's not advised.
One of the things I like about some forms of the CC license (of which
there are a confusing dozen or so configurations <g>) is the "share
alike" option, which renders works free of license fees only when used
in works which are also free of license fees.
This raises a question I've had for some time: how does one go about
implementing something like the dual licensing of MySQL?
I don't know many other projects which even attempt dual licensing, but
for some of my projects I like the idea of maintaining a revenue stream
from the product while also giving it away.
One of the downsides to relying solely on services as the revenue source
from software is that it disincentivizes good design: if a product is
sufficiently complete and easy to use it requires no consulting.
Without users covering the costs of development through license fees,
FOSS projects are limited to:
a) projects sufficiently trivial that they don't require much time
from the programmer.
b) big projects which are complex enough to require supplemental
services.
c) some strategic value to an outside funder to make it worth their
while to pay for it.
d) programmers who've been successful enough with paying work that
they can finally enjoy being able to work for free.
How viable is a dual license scheme if one hopes to derive revenue from
licensees? And how exactly does one go about it?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World
Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
