[binarycrusader]

Yes, this is similar to what Qt did / has done for years. I personally think it fits the definition of "open source" since it's multi-licensed.

[ignoramous]

  For open-source use
  
  If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3.
  
  For non-commercial use
  
  You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases.

  This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.

Well, this isn't exactly dual license, but the presence of GPLv3 comprehensively nullifies Polyform, so it is FOSS. IANAL.

[CuriousCosmic]

It's better interpreted as decreasing degrees of permissivity.

1. GPLv3 or later

2. polyform non-commercial for non-commercial non-GPLv3 (or later) works.

3. commercial license for commercial non-GPLv3 (or later) works.

---

In other words, Use GPLv3 however if you can't use GPLv3 but are non-commercial, use polyform non-commercial. Otherwise buy a commercial license.

[keepamovin]

Yes!

[ignoramous]

You may want to reword as "licensed under either GPLv3 or Polyform Non-commercial 1.0 at your option" or some such, like most rust-lang projects do; ex: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup

Then give guidance on why one might choose one license over the other.

[keepamovin]

Thank you! :) BTW - I like your RethinkDNS app -- very polished and popular! :)

[ignoramous]

Thanks, you're kind (: Ditto for BrowserBox. Amazing piece of work! Much much harder to build than what I am.

Btw, let me know if you've got any suggestions or feature requests, all ears: mz at celzero dot com