4 ms·
This is an interesting take on licences that turn 'abandon-ware' in to public domain or close to public domain code when the maintainers are unresponsive. I li
by mjevans 10y ago
This is an interesting take on licences that turn 'abandon-ware' in to public domain or close to public domain code when the maintainers are unresponsive.
I like how it mandates that there are 3 years for innovation to occur within. However I feel like the license before that needs provisions for things like the ability to make local changes as needed, and also to publish /security patches/ freely.
Edit (Beneath):
The impression I got was that he has ONE version, and a built in escape clause for anyone using it. I took the view of this licensing scheme ensuring he'd have to 'compete' against a 3 year old version of the product with compelling features; not that there'd be an intended 'free' version of the product.
- slgeorge 10y agoHe's definitely assuming that this commercial version remains primary: "I will be forced to continually improve it and upgrade if I want to keep a for sale version without there being an equivalent FOSS version around (which in theory could be maintained by the community)" But, is mostly discounting a community fork, or divergence between his commercial version and the older GPL version. If he receives patches he'll have to have a copyright assignment policy so that he can apply the features to both trees - which will risk a fork as many people strongly dislike them.
- hughperkins 10y agoI dont think hes expecting other people to contribute code to his project whilst hes working on it.
- boyter 10y agoThat is correct. I do not anticipate much feedback from others.