> most OSS authors are very willing to help
> out and, perhaps, dual license a section of
> code.

IMO it would be really nice if more OSS
projects would follow Eclipse and simply
adopt the IPL/CPL{-like***} license.

Briefly,

- derivative works subject to CPL;

- grant of patent license;

- redistribution of binaries under a
different license, even a commercial license,
is permitted (but the source code must still
be made available under the CPL);

- CPL'd code may be combined with other
licensed code without affecting the other
code's license.

regards,
alexander.

***) www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg06896.html

"[...] The IBM Public License has all of that
so we made ours by doing the minimal changes
to make it copy-center instead of copy-left.
In hindsight, we probably should have started
with the CPL instead, though the result would
be largely the same."

www.opensource.org/licenses/plan9.php

www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg 06530.html