Licensing Issues, Part Deux

  • Thread starter Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr
  • Start date

Thread Starter

Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr

Howdy all - another thought just occurred to me that I figured I should mention. One of the interesting things that some projects are doing is
'Dual Licensing' or even 'Multiple Licensing'. Instead of GPL'ing the code right off the bat, they produce two source archives - one GPL, one non-GPL (or whatever license) Why? Well, that allows for the 'normal' GPL distribution method and development method for a GPL version, while still allowing 'special' versions to be sold, given to, etc. under a different licensing scheme to an individual or company that insists on incorporating closed source extensions, etc.

The bitch of it is, well, first off, you can't incorporate GPL'ed code into the pre-source split item. Secondly, you can't later incorporate
changes into the non-GPL version of the code base without contacting the author of the change. Third, you have to maintain two versions as pretty
separate deals (no necessarily different names or anything like that, just separate code bases.) And of course, it's pretty much got to be universally agreed upon, and someone has to put up with administrating any special licenses used for versions given or sold from the non-GPL'ed version :-(

I don't really figure anyone is THAT interested in this, but, I thought it was worth mentioning, especially since the project is at an early stage.

Also, everyone might want to consider the Open Content License for the documentation for LinuxPLC. Kinda like GPL, but, for things like
Documentation, media, etc.

Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr

LinuxPLC mailing list
[email protected]