Dear all, I'd like to share an email that convinced the developers of the NodeBox library [0] to switch from a non-free license to GPL. I just thought that it might be useful for future reference to non-legal experts like me, as it attemps to clear up a common confusion about the relation of commercial, free and proprietary software.
I myself was confused about the matter until I read the replies to VIM author's concerns on switching to a GPL-compatible license in the debian-legal archives. Thanks, Serafeim ps. please do CC me in replies, as I'm not subscribed on the list [0] http://nodebox.net/code/index.php/Web ----- Forwarded message from Serafeim Zanikolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- From: Serafeim Zanikolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: NodeBox Web license Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:45:38 +0000 To: Frederik De Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, TomDeSmedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Markos Gogoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dear Tom and Frederik, First of all I would like to thank you for producing the NodeBox library. Markos (cc'ed) and me develop indywiki [1], an open-source visual browser of wikipedia, that uses part of your NodeBox Web library. The reason for my letter is to share with you our concerns about the licensing terms of your library. Currently the license says "MIT for non-commercial purposes". This is conflicting, because the MIT license basically says do as you like (including "distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software") as long as you keep the copyright note (while, on the other hand, you prohibit commercial uses). My understanding of your intention (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you want the world to use your software, but not make money from it. This is perfectly legitimate but the term "non-commercial" is very vague. For instance, one cannot include your program in a Linux distribution because it is not clear whether selling a Linux distribution CD (at the cost of a CD plus shipping) with many open-source programs and your library in it, constitutes a commercial activity. As a result, our project also cannot be included in a Linux CD distribution because of its dependency to your library. If my understanding of your intention for the licensing terms is correct, then I kindly request that you consider a dual licensing scheme [2], which will help the world use your program, and still retain the right to charge people that plan to make money by selling a proprietary product that's based on your library. In such a scheme you'd have a reciprocal license (eg, the GPL) and a proprietary payed-for license. Developers that use your library under the terms of the GPL will be required to release their program and any improvements made to your library under the same terms. I am not a lawyer but please let me stress that if you release your library under the GPL, you'll still be able to negotiate different licensing terms with proprietary software vendors that are willing to pay you so that they won't have to release their code under the GPL. Well-known examples of such dual-licensing schemes are those for MySQL and Qt. I'm looking forward to your views on the matter, and I'll be happy to provide any further clarifications. Dank u voor NodeBox en voor lezen dit brief, Groetjes, Serafeim [1] indywiki.sf.net [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_licensing ----- End forwarded message ----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
