Jump to content
Posted 22 October 2012 - 04:50 PM
Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:05 PM
Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:18 AM
Edited by codingJoe, 23 October 2012 - 04:40 AM.
Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:24 AM
Indeed, you've answered the question - you won't find an Open Source licence like this, because it isn't Open Source by definition (Well sure, there's the debate about who gets to define the term, but AIUI, the term "Open Source" was popularied by OSI, and the licences that fit that definition, so it would be best not to potentially mislead people by claiming something is "open source". Saying the code is viewable, available, or whatever as you suggest, seems absolutely fine to me however)
My problem is that the "open source" definition according to the "Open Source Initiative" requires "no discrimination against persons or group of persons", and by making a difference between academia and non-academia, I can't find an appropiate license model that is "open source" according to the OSI.
Edited by mdwh, 23 October 2012 - 06:27 AM.
Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:57 AM
Posted 24 October 2012 - 12:07 AM
Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:02 AM
Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:09 PM
Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:19 PM
Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:19 AM
Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:00 AM
Posted 25 October 2012 - 05:55 PM
Posted 26 October 2012 - 04:56 AM
Posted 26 October 2012 - 06:44 AM
Your license requirements are non-free and incompatible with the GPL. You need to choose a different license.
Thanks for the replies W00tf0rfr00t, Mike and rnlf!
I will probably go for an open source (according to the OSI) code base, licensed under GPL, and have a few add-ons/plugins, also "open" (i.e. code viewable/modifiable) under a different license:
- Free for academia
- non-free for commercial applications
This way I would also benefit of being able to be categorized as " OSI open source" in listings, but still make different conditions according to the user (Academia vs commercial)
Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:30 AM