A dual license system for code libraries?

[Agner Fog]

Hi, I have a problem with several open source projects. Neither GPL nor 
LGPL license seems to be appropriate.

One such project is my C++ vector class library 
(http://agner.org/optimize/#vectorclass )
Right now, I am using a dual license system. The library is published 
under GPL, following the advice at
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

However, there is a significant demand for using this library in 
commercial closed-source code. Therefore, I am selling commercial 
licenses to anybody who want to use the library in commercial code.

Now, there is a problem with unifying the copyright. I want to put this 
code on github and make it a collective project. But then I can no 
longer be the only copyright owner. It is not fair that others should 
contribute to the project for free while I make profit on selling 
licenses. We would have to set up an organization to own the copyright 
and sell licenses. But the administration cost of running such an 
organization would probably eat up all the income. And open source 
programmers prefer to spend their time on programming, not on 
administration of an organization.

An LGPL license is not possible because the program code that uses a 
class library will be a "derived work", not a "combined work", and it is 
impossible to meet the relinking requirement of LGPL. The application 
code and class library code are mixed together and compiled together so 
that the two cannot be separated.

An Apache or BSD license might be possible, but I don't think commercial 
users like the requirement that the end product should include various 
required notices. Also, I think these licenses are too permissive. I 
like the protection against tivoization, DRM, and patent retaliation in GPL.

More importantly, people would have little motivation to contribute to 
an open source library when their work only goes to somebody else's 
profit. The motivation would be higher if the effort could somehow 
contribute to the general goal of supporting free software. That's why I 
prefer the dual license solution. The only problem is who should own the 
copyright and sell commercial licenses?

I have asked the FSF, but they are not willing to sell licenses, and 
frankly they are quite difficult to communicate with. That's why I am 
now taking the discussion to FSFE. Is there any other suitable 
non-profit organization who could be the copyright owner and sell licenses?

I have also thought about a scheme that requires no administration. You 
would get a commercial license automatically by donating a certain 
amount of money to some non-profit organization and posting proof of 
payment to some repository. Would that work?

Or do we need a completely new license concept for open software 
libraries and other code that is likely to be used in proprietary 
derived works? Any suggestions?