I will respond to the second of @hyc's points first
Should the Monero Project itself change to a dual-use license?
There are strong arguments against certain implementations of this where our existing license is not part of the dual license that the were expressed by @fluffypony and @iamsmooth above. A good example would be combining a strong copyleft say GPL v3 with a proprietary license, with the intent of monetizing the latter. The primary issue is that either one has great trouble changing the license in the future as @fluffypony points out in
I'm strongly against relicensing Monero. Having gone through the process with Electrum, I can tell you that it is extremely painful and time-consuming. You have to get hold of EVERY contributor that has EVER contributed, and if a contributor decides they don't agree you have to get someone to rewrite their contribution (this thankfully only happened with a single Electrum contributor, but it was painful).
The above is the Linux model or one needs a centralized entity to hold the copyrights (this is needed for a dual license, involving a proprietary license if one wishes to monetize the proprietary license) as @iamsmooth points out in
Monero itself can not and should not use a dual license. A dual license (as used here) implies there is some licensing agent with whom you can contract to obtain access to the second license. There is no such entity. The "Monero Project" exists only as an informal collaboration of contributors. If such an entity did exist it would be point of centralization which could be attacked to exert influence over the currency.
The latter is the GNU model where the copyrights are held by a centralized entity namely the Free Software Foundation.
It is important to understand that going from a permissive license to another permissive license, a copyleft license or even a proprietary license does not require the permission of the existing copyright holders, provided t... Continue on github.com