1

Resolved

Choose a License

description

Dual licensing preferred to get some money for team events...

comments

wienna wrote Mar 14, 2009 at 11:21 PM

Well, I can report two main ideas so far:
(1) It's actually dual licensing what we should prefer: We publish the project for now under a copyleft license like GPL and if someone wants to include our code into some commercial non-GPL stuff, she/he has to ask us for a commercial license. But: The issue here is that when this happens, every developer who has (co-)worked on our code - of course - has to agree to this re-licensing of her/his code (as explained here: http://producingoss.com/en/dual-licensing.html). But with only a few developers this is no problem at all (if we agree ;).
(2) The second thing is a practical one: With an event ticket booking system, generally the issue would not be that someone wants to include our code in his code (see (1)) but that someone offers a successful commercial ticket booking site using our platform. And since she/he doesn't distribute any software, she/he can of course use our GPL-lincesed stuff for his site. Hence the question is: Do we want to restrict the use of our system?
(a) If we do restrict the use of our system the whole open source/free software approach doensn't make any sense - does it? ("You can copy our code but you must not use it! Hihi!")
(b) If we don't restrict the use, dual licensing is more or less senseless because it is much more likely that someone wants to use our system than that someone wants to use our code for distributing his own software - isn't it?
So either one of my propositions is wrong (that's why there are all the question marks) or the dual licensing approach would not bring a large practical benefit. But it also has no drawback, so i would suggest it.

The discussion is opened...

anardil wrote Mar 17, 2009 at 7:14 AM

Maybe a way out of this dilemma is to simply forget about all the dual licensing thing and for the beginning concentrate on the project itself and hope that anybody else out there does actually want to use the system at all :-)
Another thing is that dual-licensing as already mentioned by wienna does not really make sense for a non-library like project that could be integrated into another system or project like for example Qt can.

I think that we should use it just like anybody else can use it: As an open source tool, that is also developed by ourselfs.
This gives us the chance to implement not only commonly useful features but also maybe customer specific stuff which simply costs as it needs to be coded. A special kind of gateway for their internal booking system or whatever comes.
@Anybody: Is there a way to not GPL such special "modules" but still use the power of our ETB system? Does the usage of php stuff count as linking?
In addition I think it is essential to also provide some kind of hosting for events that need a ticketing system and maybe also a homepage (for smaller events only)
A "pay by ticket" or "pay by eventsize" kinda scheme might fit in here.

But as I am just a simple developer maybe I am completely wrong ;-) with my thoughts.

Waiting for response ...

humergu wrote Mar 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM

GPL for now and when it is time, the coordinators can change the license.

wrote Mar 17, 2009 at 3:26 PM

wrote Mar 20, 2009 at 8:51 AM

wrote Feb 13, 2013 at 3:41 AM

wrote May 15, 2013 at 1:14 AM

wrote May 15, 2013 at 1:14 AM

wrote Jun 12, 2013 at 1:05 AM