Subject: Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
From: Karl Fogel <>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:53:05 -0400

"Lawrence Rosen" <> writes:
>Karl Fogel wrote:
>> This is just a terminology question.
>Not quite. 
>RMS correctly reminds us that "intellectual property" is a term that
>subsumes at least three different property regimes. The Open Source
>Definition concerns itself only with copyright, but trademark and patent for
>software also affect what we do.
>The term "commercial use" implicates patent law in particular. So if you
>have an open source license to software for which a patent claim is
>affirmatively allowed only for non-commercial use, is that still open
>source? The OSD provides no guidance.

That's an interesting & useful point, but I don't think it changes my
response to the poster, which is essentially "This forum assumes a
certain definition of 'open source', so discussions based on other
definitions would would be more appropriately had elsewhere."


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karl Fogel [] On Behalf Of Karl Fogel
>> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:27 AM
>> To: Tzeng, Nigel H.
>> Cc: License Discuss
>> Subject: Re: Which DUAL Licence should I choose.
>> "Tzeng, Nigel H." <> writes:
>> >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).
>> This is just a terminology question.
>> The term "open source" (in software context) was coined as a synonym
>> for
>> free software.  I'm not aware of the phrase "open source" being in
>> general use at any point before then to refer to software for which
>> source code is merely visible but not freely licensed.
>> Of course, anyone can choose to use the words "open source" to mean
>> anything they want.  But this forum is hosted by an organization that
>> has a very specific & clear definition of what "open source" means.
>> The
>> "open source" licenses this forum was created to discuss are licenses
>> that guarantee a specific set of freedoms, including (among other
>> things) commercial freedoms.
>> So the inclusiveness you refer is not part of this list's mission,
>> that's all.  You're certainly free to create a mailing list that covers
>> the topics you think need to be covered -- if you spot common themes
>> among independent software developers, and you'd like to help them with
>> those themes, go for it!
>> But *this forum* was not chartered for that.  It was chartered to help
>> people understand and use open source licenses, where "open source" is
>> defined as according to .
>> It's not a matter of "inclusiveness".  It's just that you're looking in
>> the wrong place for something.  We're here to discuss "open source"
>> licenses, using a widely-accepted definition of the term.  The thing
>> you're talking about we might call "visible source" or "non-commercial
>> source access" or something.  If you start calling it "open source"
>> here, that'll just confuse other people on this list, because they
>> already have a definition of what "open source" means.
>> Anyway, changing the names of things doesn't change what they are.  Now
>> that you know what we mean when we say "open source", you'll be easily
>> able to tell whether something is on-topic for this list hosted at
>> "".
>> I don't mean for this to sound standoffish, and hope it doesn't come
>> out
>> that way.  I just don't want easily resolveable terminology issues to
>> cause confusion about the intended purpose of this forum.
>> Best,
>> -Karl
>> >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.
>> >>
>> >>Seconded.
>> >>
>> >>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.)
>> >>
>> >>-Karl
>> >>
>> >>>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);>
>> >>>>