I do understand there are many different Open Source licenses incompatible with the GPL, and projects unwilling to use it; it can be viewed as a sort of compromise.
If the author of the components wishes to limit proprietary software developers for incorporating them for free however they wish, then proprietary+GPL dual licensing is a way to go. That solution is used by the GNAT (Ada compiler suite) and has been used by Qt (didn't hurt much its popularity then).
It IS a compromise, but it's the best one I can remember ATM. If it only the current proprietary license remains, it might prevent Open Source devs from using it. MPL could also be used, but it is supposedly GPL-incompatible, whic may be a problem. If any permissive license (MIT/BSD or even LGPL) is used, that would counteract protections the autor seeks in his original license.
If someone can propose a better FOSS license to combine with the proprietary one, that would be great. Of course, there is little chance one could be found for single-licensing, since the author wishes to impose certain restrictions which cannot exist in OSI and FSF approved licenses, hence dual licensing seems the best bet.
Recent
