Licensing question...

[stoneCold]

I know the forums have already seen too many questions / discussions about licensing, etc. but I've got one question concerning the LGPL that is preying on my mind.
I've got some code that I've developed closed source so far, now it has reached a reasonable amount of functionality, and I'm thinking about releasing it as open source.
BUT, I would like to use a dual licensing for the code, in essence everyone who uses my code for his non-commercial product should be able to use the open source license.
For people that use my code for their commercial products, I'd like to offer a commercial license (I'd like to get a small piece of the cake ).

Now my question would be: "What open source license would allow for such dual-licensing ? Would LGPL work, or would it render the additional commercial license useless, since I can't prohibit people from using the LGPL license for commercial applications?"

Also, GPL + commercial license is not really what I would like to do, since GPL's "viral" nature (regarding free, closed-source projects).
I'd be really thankful for any hints or proposals of alternative licensing models that would achieve the same goal.
(everything IANAL of course, I'm just seeking for some opinions/experiences)

Thx

[edit]: I already tried to ask the same question to FSF people, which just reacted by calling me capitalist, unethic, immoral, etc.

[syd]

okay, we need a kind person to make an announcement for him

edit: fine. check out www.ogre3d.org, you'll see that Ogre will soon drop LGPL.

[stoneCold]

What has that got to do with my question ?
I've known about the change to MIT since sinbad posted it to the forums yesterday...
but that doesn't change anything to my question, why should it ?

[syd]

oh sorry
I stopped reading at "but I've got one question concerning the LGPL that is preying on my mind."
at least I was happy with the idea I could help =)

[jacmoe]

Don't talk to the FSF people, talk to the OSI people instead.

Just use GPL with the static link exception.

[stoneCold]

Just use GPL with the static link exception.

I guess you mean LGPL with the static link exception, but that doesn't answer the overall question, does the LGPL imply that licensees automatically can use my code for free, although I provide an additional commercial license ?

Thx for the help

[reptor]

Well, it's like when I was new here, and mentioned I am creating a closed-source app... what did happen? People questioned my decision not to go open-source with my app. Just wanted to share this little bit of information, that people do it here as well. I just don't understand why other people care so much about my application, whether it is closed- or open-source. Heck, they don't even know what it does, and then they question why it isn't open-source. My project is not Ogre3D or a rip-off of it, so it shouldn't really matter here.

[jacmoe]

Just use GPL with the static link exception.

I guess you mean LGPL with the static link exception, but that doesn't answer the overall question, does the LGPL imply that licensees automatically can use my code for free, although I provide an additional commercial license ?

Thx for the help

I did indeed mean GPL with static linking exception.
Both LGPL and GPL is irrevocable licenses, which means that once the license is given, you can't take it back.
GPL with static linking exception would probably mean more people buying the unrestricted commercial license from you.

[jacmoe]

The only license I know of which explicitly states that's its for non-commercial use only, is the one from Creative Commons.
They don't encourage software being licensed under it though, but you can use it I guess.

[haffax]

stonecold, you can't use the GPL or LGPL with a non-commercial clause added to it. Because any further restriction can be stripped off of the license by a redistributor of your source code, see GPL sections 7 and 10. You had to invent your own license roughly based on GPL/LGPL, but this is hard to get right for a non-lawyer. I wouldn't bother.

Best first define what the difference between a commercial and a non-commercial user is supposed to be in actual rights and obligations. It is not clear to me from your post.

[stoneCold]

stonecold, you can't use the GPL or LGPL with a non-commercial clause added to it. Because any further restriction can be stripped off of the license by a redistributor of your source code, see GPL sections 7 and 10. You had to invent your own license roughly based on GPL/LGPL, but this is hard to get right for a non-lawyer. I wouldn't bother.

Thanks for clearifing that.

Best first define what the difference between a commercial and a non-commercial user is supposed to be in actual rights and obligations. It is not clear to me from your post.

Basically, my code is a library/set of libraries that a licensee would use/include in his own software/product, now if the licensee sells his software/product commercially, I'd like to charge him for that with a small fee.
Otherwhise, if he uses my code/libraries for a product that he is releasing for free (either open source or closed source, it doesn't matter), he should be granted to use my code/library for free (without paying any fees to me).

[milliams]

Of interest may be a post by Glyn Moody talking about the recent problems CC have had in defining exactly what is meant by 'non-commercial' http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/ ... rcial.html

[stoneCold]

I did indeed mean GPL with static linking exception.
...
GPL with static linking exception would probably mean more people buying the unrestricted commercial license from you.

Could you please give me a link or an explanation what the "static linking exception" does to the GPL, since I only happen to know the "linking exception", which in essence turns the GPL into a (less restrictive) version of the LGPL.
And why would that mean that more people would be buying commercial licenses ?

Thx

[jacmoe]

After reading Sinbads blog, I realise what you need is a proprietary license.
You cannot use an Open Source license, because it doesn't allow you to put non-commercial use restrictions on it.
So you either need a lawyer, or some Google-foo.

[stoneCold]

I think I'll just go the GPL + commercial license way.
Thx for all comments.

[ppClarity]

After reading Sinbads blog, I realise what you need is a proprietary license.
You cannot use an Open Source license, because it doesn't allow you to put non-commercial use restrictions on it.
So you either need a lawyer, or some Google-foo.

Assuming that he has full rights to his own code, he can release his own work under as many different licenses as he wants. This is how Qt was licensed for years.

[jacmoe]

Exactly.
With one little difference: You cannot restrict an OSI or a FSF license to apply only for non-commercial usage.
That's not possible.
You can dual-license, but you cannot place restrictions on the license.

[ppClarity]

You can dual-license, but you cannot place restrictions on the license.

Ok, I see your point now.

And now that I think about it, GPL is not exactly a "non-commercial use" license. People use GPL'd software (eg. the Linux kernel) every day in a whole variety of commercial applications.

[stoneCold]

And now that I think about it, GPL is not exactly a "non-commercial use" license. People use GPL'd software (eg. the Linux kernel) every day in a whole variety of commercial applications.

For stand-alone software/applications that might be true, but if you apply the GPL to an API/library, you are enforcing everyone who doesn't want to comply with the GPL terms to use your alternative/commercial license.
And that's about the reason, why I'm thinking of choosing it for my code.
That way I can offer a full set of alternative licenses if I want.