3 ms·
How's that working out? As I said, I'm pondering fairness. Something practical, a la Hintjens (zeromq). Like maybe dual licensing. Edit: Hintjens has some adv
by specialist 6y ago
How's that working out?
As I said, I'm pondering fairness. Something practical, a la Hintjens (zeromq). Like maybe dual licensing.
Edit: Hintjens has some advice about using trademarks to maintain control. I'll go back and check if his strategy talks about getting paid.
- codeguro2 6y agoSeeing as how RedHat is a thing, and I'm typing this from Trisquel Linux, I'd say it's working very well.
- specialist 6y agoHow does elasticsearch, for instance, replicate redhat's success?
- phkahler 6y ago>> How's that working out? IMHO it's working ok. It definitely could be better. I think GPLv3 or AGPLv3 with a dual license is currently the way to go. That offers the free software folks the freedom and increases awareness of the code, and the commercial license can be negotiated on a case by case basis. The challenge is to get projects to require CLA before they grow and lose the control needed for dual licensing.
- specialist 6y agoOk. As you'd expect, this is not a novel idea. I did reread some of the seminal documents, refresh my memory. Free vs open, libre vs gratis. I now lean towards dual and maybe three-fold licensing. Free for non commercial use. Open for others. Something something for cloud service providers. I can't yet guess what that something something will look like. My hunch is it'll be analogous to music royalties and publishers rights. Mostly, I want some boilerplate deals and heuristics, so that people can frame their arguments, instead of reinventing the wheel each round.