Calling all open source developers

[Richard Gaskin]

David Bovill wrote:

> 2009/10/20 Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com>
>> How viable is a dual license scheme if one hopes to derive revenue from
>> licensees?  And how exactly does one go about it?
> 
> That's exactly what I've proposed Richard! It's fairly straight forwards,
> I've checked it with the FOSS people in Europe, but have a few twists to
> make it work a little simpler and more flexibly. Simply put the GPL license
> a sused on an interpreted language virally affects the openness of the
> script, and does not have implications for the engine. What this means in
> practice is that GPL licensed Rev code can be used freely by anyone, but not
> compiled into a protected stack. As such all RevTalk scripts distributed as
> part of an app should be made publicly available, including any libraries or
> code supplied by the developer - this encourages the feedback to the
> community.
> 
> However, a developer wishing to have full access to the code and to release
> protected applications, can do so by taking out a commercial (dual license).
> The business model I am proposing, is that the collectively owned
> organisation would license this code for an annual fee entitling access to
> all the communities code in closed commericial applications. This money woud
> go into a central bank account, and be redistributed to developers working
> on open source project deemed to be of importance to the community.
> 
> It is important that this is a legal entity, not just for fund raising
> issues, but also for licensing reasons. In order to release all code dual
> licensed it helps if there is one copyright holder, and this copyright
> holder should be collectively owned and empowered to create commercial
> licenses to the benefit of the community. The Parnership structure I am
> proposing protects this as it is based on Partnership law of one partner one
> vote, and allows informal agreements (such as those signed off on the web
> site) to be taken into account by the judge - thus offering a more flexible
> and lower cost option as compared to traditional contract based licensing.

Great stuff, David.  More than just a grand vision, it appears well 
thought out on many levels.

One thing I don't understand with GPL'd code, though:

What if rather than contributing, someone wanted to drive traffic to 
their own site by forking the project and enhancing a new version of it?

Are there any ways to ensure that a common pool doesn't get fragmented 
like that?


Also: Would a Rev stack need to use LGPL to maintain a clear distinction 
from the engine, or is GPL sufficiently clear on that?

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
  revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv