I have two lines of active thought around this for L0.
One is sponsored relicensing. It's possible today to set a price at which you'll relicense an L0 project onto vanilla BSD-2-Clause terms. In essence, you can put an estimate on future dual licensing revenue, discount it to present day, subtract any discount you'd apply for personal gratification in making it maximally available, and make a standing buyout offer at that price.
The other is an alternative public license for L0 projects, a very, very strong copyleft (reciprocal) license. That license should conform to the Open Source Definition. It's in review and revision with OSI now.
The reciprocal license would allow forks that meets its conditions, namely that the fork and other software that incorporates or uses it in development must be Open Source.
Dual licensing is fundamentally a privilege of initial copyright holders. When you fork, you almost always do so on the basis of your rights under the public license. If you fork under the noncommercial public license, you and users of your fork have to stick to noncommercial use, or pay for other terms on the original code.
Oooooh. I really like the idea of dual AGPLv3/commercial-if-entity-exists-else-2BSD, because that means it is free software no matter what. It's just the sort of free software that big companies will pay money to avoid, which is what you want. :-)
I originally set out to do L0 with a noncommercial license only. Then I had half a dozen good conversations with copyleft friends, who pointed out that (1) they really liked what I was doing, (2) they'd never use anything but a copyleft license, (3) even the (A)GPLs were compromise implementations of the values they really hold dear.
Open Source licenses can't discriminate against groups or fields of endeavor. But groups discriminate against Open Source all the time. A strong copyleft license could be both Open Source and nearly as effective as a noncommercial license in driving financial support to OSS maintainers. Under L0-R, companies can choose: Either they make their work available as Open Source, or they support others who do.
I like the direction where this is going. Giving adopters the option to choose between strong copyleft (e.g. AGPL) or paying. Everybody wins, except freeloaders.
What license would you provide the paid copy with? It should allow modification, linking, redistribution but only for the paying customer.
One is sponsored relicensing. It's possible today to set a price at which you'll relicense an L0 project onto vanilla BSD-2-Clause terms. In essence, you can put an estimate on future dual licensing revenue, discount it to present day, subtract any discount you'd apply for personal gratification in making it maximally available, and make a standing buyout offer at that price.
The other is an alternative public license for L0 projects, a very, very strong copyleft (reciprocal) license. That license should conform to the Open Source Definition. It's in review and revision with OSI now.
The reciprocal license would allow forks that meets its conditions, namely that the fork and other software that incorporates or uses it in development must be Open Source.
Dual licensing is fundamentally a privilege of initial copyright holders. When you fork, you almost always do so on the basis of your rights under the public license. If you fork under the noncommercial public license, you and users of your fork have to stick to noncommercial use, or pay for other terms on the original code.