3 ms·

I'm not sure that would actually be that big of an issue. Let's say you have some sort of model where a monthly subscription gives you an MIT license for all c

I'm not sure that would actually be that big of an issue. Let's say you have some sort of model where a monthly subscription gives you an MIT license for all commits made that month. Who is actually going to go to the trouble of mirroring every commit or release from upstream to their own public repository? If somebody actually did that gratuitously, the copyright owner could just decline to renew their subscription the following month. I'm sure there's some issues with this that I'm not thinking of, but I think generally if somebody is willing to pay you for a license, they're not going to be a jerk and try to undermine your business.

sequoia 7y ago
You're describing a commercial licensing agreement. Why would you use MIT at all in this case?
_frkl 7y ago
I agree with the parent post, and the sibling. MIT doesn't make much sense in your scenario. Dual-licensing is usually a copy left license, and some sort of private/commercial license agreement to protect against the case the parent comment mentions. The people who want to support you are not the problem. They'd probably donate too if they would buy a license in this thought experiment. The people who don't want to support you are. One of them could buy a license, relicense as MIT. And either they'd get updates with their paid license, in which case they'd just release those as MIT too, or wait for your next stable version and buy again and so on. Or they would just fork the project, and start their own business around it, without having had any more cost than a single license....