| |||||||||||||
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-nextFOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-nextPosted Feb 15, 2013 5:05 UTC (Fri) by josh (subscriber, #17465)In reply to: FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next by rfontana Parent article: FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next
I think I might understand your concern now. If you mean dual-licensing business models that follow the poorly named "open core" model and sell an extended proprietary version, then I agree with you; that seems just as problematic as selling proprietary software in the first place. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with selling permissively licensed versions of the same code as a revenue model.
I'd still rather see this as an optional addition to the license, though, rather than a required provision.
(Log in to post comments)
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next Posted Feb 15, 2013 21:19 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
To sell permissively licensed versions of the same code require you to be the sole copyright holder. So either you require copyright assignment or you refuse all external contributions, both alternatives being antisocial.
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next Posted Feb 17, 2013 12:31 UTC (Sun) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link]
Or that you get a license agreement from contributors explicitly allowing you to sell permissively licensed versions of the same code.
The Chromium CLA does that, for example:
|
|||||||||||||