GPL Time Bomb – an interesting approach to FOSS licensing

Re:GPL Time Bomb – an interesting approach to FOSS licensing by boyter on Friday September 09, 2016 @07:54AM (#12461297)

To be honest I am not looking for collaboration at this point. The orginal reason for posting the source is because this indexes your source code and many raised concerns that it could potentially be phoning home with your code. Being able to see the code and build the binary distribution to hash check solves that issue.

The reason for the time delay is because I want to look after anyone who does use his in the event of my death or otherwise. It means you are unlikely to be stranded in the future.

I do want to move closer and closer to a full GPL model, however I also want to be paid. If the full version is GPL then what is a strategy to achieve this? I could feature gate but this is also hated by many as seen by the nginx model.

If someone can come up with a better model then "sell support" and have a clean soul I will be all over it. Till then this works in a way that's adventagous for myself without being too restrictive in the future for others.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GPL Time Bomb – an interesting approach to FOSS licensing by blackorzar on Friday September 09, 2016 @01:45PM (#12464450)

Define that all the external contributions must be dual licenced Apache Public License v2 and GPL, that way you can integrate it to your lead version (commercial licence) because APL2 allows it, and also you can release it after 3 years in the GPL branch (or rebase it to the current GPL edition right away). This way you don't need the contributors to sign anything and aligns well with your model.

[ Parent | on HN ]