[Feature Request]: dual licensing model in consideration?

[vladimir-kraus]

Feature description

Aren't there any plans for dual licensing model of this library? So that there is a free-of-charge GPL version for non-commercial users and also a commercial version with which customers can pay the author and be allowed to link this library to their commercial closed-source software?

I think it could have lots of benefits:

1. Stream of income for the author, which would be well deserved!
2. Wider spread of bit7z usage.
3. Benefits for commercial app developers who are (by my experience) struggling to find any really good archiving library on the market. I think they would be glad to pay for such a high quality library.

I do not know however if this is possible. I am no licensing expert. Doesn't it breach 7Zip license?

Additional context

No response

Code of Conduct

• By submitting this issue, I agree to follow bit7z's Code of Conduct

[rikyoz]

Aren't there any plans for dual licensing model of this library?

This is actually the main reason that it is blocking me from releasing the beta version of the v4.0 (which is already functionally complete)!
Some people contacted me since they could not use the library due to the GPL license and its "viral" nature.
So I'm currently studying how I can possibly change the licensing model of bit7z to spread its usage further.
I hope to proceed with the re-licensing before releasing the beta.

So that there is a free-of-charge GPL version for non-commercial users and also a commercial version with which customers can pay the author and be allowed to link this library to their commercial closed-source software?

I think it could have lots of benefits:

1. Stream of income for the author, which would be well deserved!

2. Wider spread of bit7z usage.

3. Benefits for commercial app developers who are (by my experience) struggling to find any really good archiving library on the market. I think they would be glad to pay for such a high quality library.

Thank you again for your appreciation of this project!
Yeah, it would be awesome if all these points could be addressed!

I have some doubts concerning the possible stream of income, though.
Yes, I'm the author of about 99% of the code of this library. However, there have been some contributions from others, and hopefully, there will be in the future.
So I don't know how to deal with this.

For the moment, the ideal license I was thinking of would require any commercial app developer to at least share any eventual changes to the library.
In this sense, I'm looking into either the LGPLv2.1/v3 with a static linking exception or the MPLv2. As far as I understand (I am not a lawyer), these would allow commercial apps to link bit7z statically and also enforce sharing any changes to it.
I still need to study them more in-depth, though, to get any possible implication of a license change.

I do not know however if this is possible. I am no licensing expert. Doesn't it breach 7Zip license?

Some of my latest changes to bit7z v4.0 addressed removing any unnecessary usage of code from the 7-zip project.
Hence, now the library should only use the header files containing the interfaces needed for using the shared libraries, nothing else.
Since 7-zip is licensed under the LGPLv2.1+, it shouldn't affect bit7z's license (as far as I understand). I need to do a more in-depth check on these details too.

As a final note, once I've finally decided which license model to use, I'll have to open a pull request with the changes and ask all the other contributors to accept them.