Multi-licensing (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Multi-licensing" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
1,475th place
1,188th place
1,686th place
1,293rd place
1st place
1st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,514th place
1,024th place
low place
8,021st place
low place
low place
2nd place
2nd place
564th place
1,445th place
415th place
327th place
low place
9,807th place

asterisk.org

dirkriehle.com

doi.org

  • Riehle, Dirk (March 2012). "The single-vendor commercial open source business model". Information Systems and E-Business Management. 10 (1): 5–17. doi:10.1007/s10257-010-0149-x.

gnu.org

icfcst.kiev.ua

  • Nikolai Bezroukov (2001). "Comparative merits of GPL, BSD and Artistic licences (Critique of Viral Nature of GPL v.2 - or In Defense of Dual Licensing Idea)". Archived from the original on December 22, 2001. Viral property stimulates proliferation of licenses and contributes to the "GPL-enforced nightmare" -- a situation when many other licenses are logically incompatible with the GPL and make life unnecessary difficult for developers working in the Linux environment (KDE is a good example here, Python is a less known example).

kb.se

urn.kb.se

linuxinsider.com

mit.edu

sloanreview.mit.edu

mozilla.org

mozilla.org

wiki.mozilla.org

mysql.com

dev.mysql.com

oracle.com

perl.org

dev.perl.org

pocoo.org

lucumr.pocoo.org

  • Ronacher, Armin (July 23, 2013). "Licensing in a Post Copyright World". lucumr.pocoo.org. Retrieved November 18, 2015. The AGPLv3 was a terrible success, especially among the startup community that found the perfect base license to make dual licensing with a commercial license feasible. MongoDB, RethinkDB, OpenERP, SugarCRM as well as WURFL all now utilize the AGPLv3 as a vehicle for dual commercial licensing. The AGPLv3 makes that generally easy to accomplish as the original copyright author has the rights to make a commercial license possible but nobody who receives the sourcecode itself through the APLv3 inherits that right. I am not sure if that was the intended use of the license, but that's at least what it's definitely being used for now.

sys-con.com

linux.sys-con.com

web.archive.org

  • Nikolai Bezroukov (2001). "Comparative merits of GPL, BSD and Artistic licences (Critique of Viral Nature of GPL v.2 - or In Defense of Dual Licensing Idea)". Archived from the original on December 22, 2001. Viral property stimulates proliferation of licenses and contributes to the "GPL-enforced nightmare" -- a situation when many other licenses are logically incompatible with the GPL and make life unnecessary difficult for developers working in the Linux environment (KDE is a good example here, Python is a less known example).

wolfssl.com