0

The code should remains as open as possible, but I'm planning to sell it on Windows and Mac, and make free rmp/deb.

Does the licence even matter? It feels like I'm just selling the service of compiling and distributing the software here.

  • Do you want to allow others to compile your program and distribute the binaries? – CodesInChaos Feb 13 '12 at 11:22
  • 1
    It's not a FOSS if they can't, so yes. – e-satis Feb 13 '12 at 11:26
  • In that case pretty much any open source license is OK, and you should choose based on other factors, such as permissive vs. copyleft/virality. – CodesInChaos Feb 13 '12 at 11:30
7

Since the program is Open Source, anyone can take your Linux code and port it to Windows and Mac OSX. Therefore you're really only selling the compiling, distributing, support (etc...) services, and those aren't covered by a copyright license anyway.

E.g. the GPL makes it explicit that such additional services are entirely outside the scope of the license, and anyone may charge money for that (not just you).

1

What you are really looking at is a Dual License phenomenon. You can provide two version of licensing under different conditions.

one of best/notworthy example is QT licensing where commercial license will permit commercial usage more freely (essentially allowing selling of close source apps created using QT).

In other cases is MySQL which allows GPL for Open source projects but mandates OEM license for commercial projects which uses and extends MySQL engine.

Read this article from an OSS book and this from OSS Watch

Also, read this: Dual licensing with GPL library

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.