DOS ain't dead

License choice? (Announce)

posted by ecm  , Düsseldorf, Germany, 28.10.2010, 23:02

> Reading and considering ...

Really, considering?

> The thing that I am struggling with is that I have at least several hundred
> hours invested in the code, and while I am willing to share the code with
> like minded hobbyists I am not willing to let purely commercial users
> benefit from the work without having to put something back into it. So for
> me, GPL with copyleft is an option. Or a license that explicitly prohibits
> linking and reselling with commercial code.
>
> Programming is art - this is a creation. My child if you will. I want to
> share the joy, but it would utterly irritate me to find out somebody was
> making money off of the code unfairly. Using the existing apps in a
> commercial environment would be fine.

The GPL allows selling software. You can sell support for GPL software too, but that's not what I mean. You can sell GPL software - though only under the GPL, which means anyone who gets the program is allowed to copy it. Software written for and sold to one client can be licensed under the GPL; that client can release the software publicly or refrain from doing so.

There is no (FSF) "free" or (OSI) "open source" license that disallows all commercial usage of a program. SourceForge requires you to use an OSI-approved license.

> Building and selling a product based
> with the code included (linked in) would not be. I've had a few inquiries
> in the last year, so it is a valid concern.

This pretty much kills it for me. Your utilities are probably useful, but as developer I'm interested in a library, or re-using the network code for my stuff. It's not that I intend to sell my programs, but I don't use code licensed that restrictively. (As an aside, I'll usually not bother asking for source code if it isn't available as download.) But that's just me.

---
l

Complete thread:

• mTCP 2010-09-16 Version - mbbrutman, 17.09.2010, 02:16
  • mTCP 2010-09-16 Version - 60-Bytes-BUG fixed - DOS386, 13.10.2010, 03:43
    • mTCP 2010-09-16 Version - 60-Bytes-BUG fixed - mbbrutman, 13.10.2010, 06:16
      • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - mbbrutman, 21.10.2010, 05:59
        • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - ecm, 21.10.2010, 06:06
        • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - Rugxulo, 21.10.2010, 08:21
          • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - mbbrutman, 21.10.2010, 15:23
        • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - ecm, 22.10.2010, 18:48
          • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - mbbrutman, 22.10.2010, 20:40
            • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - ecm, 22.10.2010, 21:59
              • License choice? - mbbrutman, 23.10.2010, 23:36
                • License choice? - Rugxulo, 24.10.2010, 00:55
                  • License choice? - mbbrutman, 24.10.2010, 16:19
                • License choice? | TEST | not DOG-BOX - DOS386, 24.10.2010, 04:05
                  • Problem reports - send me a TRACE! - mbbrutman, 24.10.2010, 16:15
                • License choice? - ecm, 28.10.2010, 23:02
                  • License choice? - mbbrutman, 29.10.2010, 01:33
                    • License choice? - ecm, 29.10.2010, 14:02
            • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - Rugxulo, 22.10.2010, 22:24
              • License choice? - mbbrutman, 23.10.2010, 23:42
        • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - Laaca, 29.10.2010, 07:51
          • mTCP 2010-10-20 Version - IP Fragments! - mbbrutman, 29.10.2010, 17:32
            • mTCP - TSR? - ecm, 29.10.2010, 23:31
              • mTCP - TSR? - mbbrutman, 29.10.2010, 23:50
                • mTCP - TSR? - ecm, 30.10.2010, 00:04