A dual license system for code libraries?

Agner Fog agner at agner.org
Sun Feb 26 19:26:17 UTC 2017

On 26-02-2017 19:48, Carsten Agger wrote:
> If our business models never involve releasing under a proprietary 
> license, we're not contributing to the proprietary software economy, 
> and that's that. 
Acturally, we are contributing indirectly if an open source library is 
used in proprietary software.

> Honestly, I think we should focus speculations on business model on 
> providing software under free licenses. For that reason, I'm 
> personally against the selling of exceptions.
Yes, we need to focus on how to finance open software. But to me, the 
word "business model" is at odds with the ideal of free software.

Whether an open source project needs funding, and whether a project is 
able to attract funding, is two different things. For example, some 
projects might raise money by selling support or custom features while 
other projects are unable to do so.
Software libraries can make money by selling license exceptions, but 
have no need for the money. That's why I want to redirect these money to 
some other projects that need them, but apparently we can't agree on how 
to do this.
> Another thing: As a developer, I think the GPL is too restrictive a 
> license for libraries. If I write a very small, nearly trivial, 
> application based on a given library, I like having the option of 
> placing it in the public domain or releasing it under the two-clause 
> BSD license or any other free license that's not the GPL. For that 
> reason, I believe I'd always place any library I write myself under 
> the LGPL or similar.
I agree. But the LGPL works only for dynamic libraries (.dll or .so) 
because it has a requirement that the library can be relinked.

More information about the Discussion mailing list