[geeklog-devel] Slashdot story: Dual licensing

[Tony Bibbs]

This is interesting. I thought I'd jot my thoughts down here as it 
relates to Geeklog:

1) Odds of Geeklog being package as part of another commercial solutions 
is slim unless we make the GL2 engine a true development platform (i.e. 
GL is sorta like .net where you can code against it).
2) I see the revenue streams in custom plug-ins and by dinging ISP's who 
, of late, are offering Geeklog to make money but none have yet 'given 
back'.  I think an ISP or other company offering GL as a product should 
either have to pay a royalty OR commit development time (all code is 
retained by us, of course).

I'm not sure a dual license is needed.  Do we see a need to release 
parts of Geeklog 2 under different licenses?  For example should the 
core GL2 engine be under one license and the article and file management 
plugins be offered under a different one?

In the end, as long as hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers get GL for free 
and organizations and business have to pay in certain cases I'd be quite 
happy.

--Tony

Dirk Haun wrote:
> Here's an interesting Slashdot story about dual licensing
> 
>     <http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/10/213217>
> 
> While this may not be the way to go for GL2, the comments have some
> interesting information on the pros and cons of dual licensing and
> license changes in general.
> 
> bye, Dirk
> 
> 


-- 
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
|Tony Bibbs         |[R]egardless of what you may think of our penal   |
|tony at tonybibbs.com |system, the fact is that every man in jail is one |
|                   |less potential fisherman to clutter up your       |
|                   |favorite pool or pond. --Ed Zern                  | 

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+