[REBOL] Re: steel... gpl licensing...
From: andreas:bolka:gmx at: 29-Aug-2003 9:46
Friday, August 29, 2003, 2:38:01 AM, Maxim wrote:
> I'm about to suggest making the STEEL project a gpl based tool with
> alternative licensing in certain circumstances (like commercial and
> contributor licenses).
Just a quick note re GPL and re-licensing on demand.
One problem with this approach is, that as soon as someone contributes
to the project and releases his contributions under the GPL you cannot
just simply re-license those contributions anymore - if you use those
contributions you're bound to the GPL-license yourself.
So as long as you're the only one working on a project (e.g. Steel),
dual licensing under GPL and on-demand licenses for commercial users
are a perfectly fine thing. If some day someone contributes something
vital to your project, and you want to incorporate that contribution
into the "main" codebase, you're bound to the GPL use for those
contributions. Or you'll have to try and get a custom license from the
contributor.
I prefer the Academic Free License for my open source projects -
basically, the AFL is a non-viral license like the MIT/X11 licenses.
Imho GPL licensing hinders REBOL's progress as it kind of blocks
REBOL's subversive potential - no way to silently sneak a REBOL
solution into your company, you must either buy a commercial license
or break the GPL.
--
Best regards,
Andreas
