Ben Tilly wrote:
> 
> Robert Feldt <feldt / ce.chalmers.se> wrote:
> >
> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Kevin Smith wrote:
> [...]
> > > How would people feel about stuff in the RAA with
> > > a dual license: if it's used in a non-commercial
> > > product (say, GPL or Ruby license), then GPL
> > > applies. Otherwise, it's shareware requiring a
> > > $xxx one-time donation to the Xxxx organization.
> > > Thoughts?
> 
> If you say that GPL applies in *ANY* situation then anyone
> can modify trivially and release under pure GPL.  That can
> be used in commercial settings.
> 
> >This is exactly was I meant. A dual license being essentially:
> >   * GPL, or Ruby for (open-source) GPL/Ruby work, but
> >   * Shareware with a fixed, one-time, low price for commerical use with
> >     garantueed approval (no filtering of companies allowed to buy).
> >
> >I guess it is hard (or even impossible, see Ben Tillys prior mail) to
> >actually write one license with the above meaning but IMHO it might be a
> >good thing.
> 
> It is impossible to be open source and charge for commercial
> use.  See items 5 and 6 of http://www.opensource.org/osd.html.

QT, the library underlying KDE, is available under a number of 
different licenses from TrollTech (the firm that developed QT).
IIRC, the QPL attempted to do something like what you're after.
Check out:
  http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faq/simple.html
  http://www.trolltech.com/products/download/freelicense/
  http://www.trolltech.com/company/announce/gpl.html
  http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/qt.html

  --Dwight Tuinstra
    tuinstra / clarkson.edu