Subject: Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
From: Ben Tilly <>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 08:58:43 -0700

 Mon, 8 Aug 2011 08:58:43 -0700
A piece of perspective may explain this for you.

The open source movement started as a way to make free software
acceptable to businesses.  Most people who are involved in the open
source movement use open source software professionally inside of
companies.  Thus attempting to block commercial use has taken you out
of the whole point of open source software, and has made the software
useless for most people who might otherwise want to use it.

Thus commercial use is not a fringe corner case.  Either for open
source software, or for people involved in open source software.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <> wrote:
> Non-commercial open source licenses predate or coincide with the
> development of what we now call Open Source licenses (mostly, I presume in
> academia).  They may not be Open Source but they are still open source (as
> in code is available).
> As far as whether this actually meets the OP's desires, my impression was
> that he didn't much care if individuals used his code for private projects
> but if companies wanted to use his code he'd like them to pay for a
> license.
> That strikes me as a common theme among many independent software
> developers that make up the bulk of non-corporate open source
> contributors.  This is also why CC contains a non-commercial option for
> content creators: Fairness.
> Is it really so hard for us to be mildly inclusive?  As I stated in my
> original post, once you step outside accepted Open Source dogma you're on
> your two guys don't even want to point folks in the right
> direction.
> On 8/6/11 7:07 PM, "Karl Fogel" <> wrote:
>>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
>>>> imposes, and the criteria that the OP listed.
>>>> It doesn't even meet the "pay me a royalty if you sell it" criteria
>>>> 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);>