Calling all open source developers

[Richard Gaskin]

David Bovill wrote:
> Creative Commons (CC) is not advised for code as it was not designed for it
> legally speaking. Some people use it (mainly as there is no FOSS license I
> know of which says "non-commercial"), but it's not advised.

One of the things I like about some forms of the CC license (of which 
there are a confusing dozen or so configurations <g>) is the "share 
alike" option, which renders works free of license fees only when used 
in works which are also free of license fees.

This raises a question I've had for some time:  how does one go about 
implementing something like the dual licensing of MySQL?

I don't know many other projects which even attempt dual licensing, but 
for some of my projects I like the idea of maintaining a revenue stream 
from the product while also giving it away.

One of the downsides to relying solely on services as the revenue source 
from software is that it disincentivizes good design: if a product is 
sufficiently complete and easy to use it requires no consulting.

Without users covering the costs of development through license fees, 
FOSS projects are limited to:

a) projects sufficiently trivial that they don't require much time
    from the programmer.

b) big projects which are complex enough to require supplemental
    services.

c) some strategic value to an outside funder to make it worth their
    while to pay for it.

d) programmers who've been successful enough with paying work that
    they can finally enjoy being able to work for free.


How viable is a dual license scheme if one hopes to derive revenue from 
licensees?  And how exactly does one go about it?

--
  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