On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Tarmo Pikaro <tapika_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Then eventually I've came up with licensing which would support both
> development approaches -
> open source code and closed platform base - and I've came up with license
> which I'm attaching below.
> However - I don't have any source code repository (svn / git / mercurial)
> which would work under my license - basically my idea is
> such that v1.0 is open source code, while v2.0 costs something, but after
> "1.0 to 2.0" investment is returned - v2.0 also starts to be public.
I don't want to get into any SVN licensing discussion here, Stefan Sperling
already covered that bit and I don't have to add anything.
But you make the impression that you are over-complicating things for you:
(1) Yours is yours and theirs is theirs.
You are free to license software that you ("you" may be your company) own
under any license you want. As far as you don't own a particular part of
you must comply to the rules (not necessarily expressed in terms of a
explicitly or implicitly established by the respective owner.
(2) From (1) follows that you may distribute your software under any number
licenses *simultaneously*. One typical model is to have a free open source
license for non-commercial use and a commercial license for people
commercial products with it. Another option is to release your software
the public domain after a certain period of time. The latter can also be
incentive for paying customers (investment protection).
(3) Don't device your own open source license. Chances are that it wouldn't
hold water, or worse: is rejected by prospect customers because it doesn't
fit their internal processes ("compliance is a key business factor to us;
far we only approved Apache License, LGPL, GPLv2 and XYZ for internal
Hope that helps you in your decision making.
*Join one of our free daily demo sessions on* *Scaling Subversion for the
Received on 2013-04-14 14:19:50 CEST