Providing a Closed Source License Upon Request?

goruka writes "As a citizen of the open source community, I have written several applications and libraries and released under the BSD license. Because of my license choice, I often run into the situation where a company wants to write software for a closed platform using my code or libraries. Even though there should be no restrictions on usage, companies very often request a different license, citing as a valid reason that the creator of such platform has special terms forbidding 'open source software' in the contracts forced upon the developer. So my question is, has anyone else run into this situation, and are there examples of such licenses that I can provide? (Please keep in mind that I'm not a US resident and I don't have access or resources to afford a lawyer there.)"

Comments

Charge a monster price

[Stumbles]

If the terms of the BSD license is not good enough, I'd tell them to piss off.

BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

The BSD license is already more permissive than any other license, and allows code to be used in proprietary products. There is nothing that a proprietary license would let them do that BSD will not, thus there is no justification for them to subject you to the trouble of researching this just because their policies are written by stupid people.

By making this clear to the people you work with, you could do the public understanding of free software a favor. By bowing to their obscene requests arising from ignorance, you would admit defeat in the face of the FUD coming out of places like Microsoft.

Re:BSD

[alfoolio]

OP said in essence: We have a business requirement of no open software licenses.

What a proprietary (The BSD 3 clause reworded as mentioned above works fine.) developer license lets them do that a plain vanilla open source license does not allow them to do is WIN THE BUSINESS given the constraints of the situation.

Perhaps you are inexperienced in the relationship that a smaller vendor holds to a larger customer who has other options. The general rule is keep the customer satisfied. Ideally without corrupting your soul. ;) Is the customer (here at least) an idiot? Why, yes, they are.... In fact, they are the idiot who is paying us so we are able to feed our babies and buy mommy the new minivan. Does it cost anything to do this special license? Would it cost us the business to not do it?

In the real world you work on moral goals by successive approximation. Sometimes you have to sugar coat the medicine, even if it doesn't taste bad. Failure to understand and honor these realities while flaying someone for a position that appears morally inferior to yours is itself a form of FUD.

Just tell them ...

[DrJimbo]

... that BSD is a closed source license.

Seriously, I suggest you have nothing to do with such idiots on the off chance that it is contagious.

Re:Word Games?

[TheWanderingHermit]

I'm not saying this to be sarcastic, but one big difference could be if he gets paid.

If they're offering to pay you for a closed source license, then it's worth time to research it. If they want the code free, they got no business asking a coder to do even more work for them in the form of a new license for free.

Why complain?

[GiveBenADollar]

This software company for whatever reason does not feel comfortable using the software under the existing licence. It doesn't matter if they are afraid to get sued later or whatnot. Contacting the author of the code and requesting to license it for a commercial endeavor is the right thing to do. They should be commended for their effort, but for some reason most of the comments are chastising them for it. I say good on them.

You just defined WGA there.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just defined WGA there. But Microsoft isn't going to jail for it, are they? Your analogy breaks down because, whether it should or not, the sort of fucking about that is illegal in cars is absolutely fine under law with digital products.