Subject: Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
From: Karl Fogel <>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 19:07:26 -0400

Rod Dixon <> writes:
>I understand the desire to be helpful to the OP, but I think it is OK
>- if not preferable - to say to someone that we cannot help you on
>this list given your stated objective and the purpose of this list.


This isn't a list for helping people use licenses to do whatever they
want to do.  It's a list for helping people understand what open source
licenes do.  Even broadly interpreted, there are still plenty of
conversations that drift beyond that mandate, and I think we can be a
bit more vigilant about gently nudging those off-list.  (It's fine for
anyone to privately offer a poster consulting help, of course.)


>On Aug 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, jonathon <> wrote:
>> On 08/01/2011 04:09 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>>> My recommendation is to use the Creative Commons Attribution,
>> Non-Commercial, Share Alike 3.0 license.
>> You have got to be kidding.
>> There are no points in common between the requirements that that license
>> imposes, and the criteria that the OP listed.
>> It doesn't even meet the "pay me a royalty if you sell it" criteria that
>> the OP wants. (It is possible to sell CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 licensed content,
>> and be in full compliance of that license.)
>> jonathon
>> -- 
>> All emails sent to this with email address with a precedence other than
>> bulk, or list, are forwarded to Dave Null, unread.
>>    * English - detected
>>    * English
>>    * English
>> <javascript:void(0);>