[plug] [OT] After Year 12

[James Devenish]

In message <411037C3.8070606 at smlintl.com.au>
on Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 09:11:31AM +0800, Marc Wiriadisastra wrote:
> >[3] Side note, what license should I release an application under if I 
> >wish for it to be free for general public but not for commercial use?
> GPL I think.  Although have a read of it.  Depends if its not for 
> commercial use then you will not get commercial dollars.  What I mean by 
> that is the donations won't increase thats the purpose of the GPL though.

By the way, in answer to "what licence?"...Well, you could use *any*
licence that prohibits the things that you want to prohibit. You can
just write your own licence. There is a lot of talk about "well known"
licences, which as I understand have come to prominence in the last few
decades, but they are not necessary. Their advantage is that someone
else has given their opinion on efficacy and implications. They also
make it easy for people to recognise what they (as consumers) are
dealing with. However, that's a convenience rather than a requirement.
Also, it is also possible to use "dual licence" arrangements if you want
to leave the door open to negotiation, or to create differential
licensing based on the nature of the users. Since you are the author,
it's basically your choice as to what you do, although you should check
that your position is self-consistent, clear, and solid. If you find a
licence that suits you, that's great. If the project is hosted on
SourceForge, though, it'll need to be an approved "FOSS"-style licence.
Also, consider what you really intend when you prohibit "commercial use"
(e.g. you *might* want to prohibit commercial use, or you *might* want
to prohibit closed/proprietary use, and those are not necessarily the
same thing).