From: Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
Date: 2001-01-12T18:57:38+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:9189] Re: Licensing issues

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Kevin Smith wrote:

> If at all possible, *please* find an existing 
> license that is close enough to what you want. We 
> already have too many license variations. This 
> also allows you to leverage whatever legal work 
> someone else has already done. The really popular 
> open source-related ones I can think of are: GPL, 
> LGPL, Ruby, artistic, and BSD. You might also 
> look at: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-
> list.html
> 
I'll look into it but haven't found anything like it yet...

For example, on the gnu.org page you'll find:

"``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must
be available for commercial use. Commercial development of free software
is no longer unusual; such programs are free commercial software."

so I guess anything along the lines we discuss here can ever go as free
software.

> How would people feel about stuff in the RAA with 
> a dual license: if it's used in a non-commercial 
> product (say, GPL or Ruby license), then GPL 
> applies. Otherwise, it's shareware requiring a 
> $xxx one-time donation to the Xxxx organization. 
> Thoughts?
> 
This is exactly was I meant. A dual license being essentially:
  * GPL, or Ruby for (open-source) GPL/Ruby work, but
  * Shareware with a fixed, one-time, low price for commerical use with
    garantueed approval (no filtering of companies allowed to buy).

I guess it is hard (or even impossible, see Ben Tillys prior mail) to
actually write one license with the above meaning but IMHO it might be a
good thing.

One advantage with such a license would be that you'd actually know which
corps (if any!) use the stuff you've developed.

> kind of "ask us and we'll figure something out". 
> I didn't want to invest time learning something 
> that I might have to abandon later. Fixed price 
> and guaranteed approval are important.
> 
> >BTW, commerical use is probably hypothetical at the current state of Ruby
> >development but this might/will change in the future, eh?!
> 
> Not at all hypothetical. As soon as an 
> appropriate project comes along at work, I'll be 
> pushing hard to use Ruby.
>
Would you/your employer consider paying a low price, say $30, as a
one-time fee to use a (large/powerful/important) Ruby-extension?

BTW, my impression from the relatively low "traffic" in this thread is
that it is kind of tabu to think in terms other than GPL/Ruby/Artistic
licenses. Or is it simply that people dont care? Please share your
thoughts! I'll summarize all points and put them on a web page for future
reference.

Another q: Anyone knows a mailing list or newsgroup discussing licensing
issues?

/Robert