On 8/31/2014 7:57 AM, Joakim wrote:
On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 10:30:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
There is some precedent for a commercial software package to be
released like this:
"This is available under either a commercial license or GPL. You can
freely download and use the software and its source code, at no cost,
under the terms of the GPL. Companies that do not wish to be bound by
the GPL can purchase a commercial license instead."
Ah, I wasn't sure what you meant by "cross-licensed," the
GPL/commercial licensing model you're referring to is commonly called
dual-licensing.
Ah, ok. My mind registered "cross-" and "dual-" as being the same.
Or there will be a common variant like:
"Students, home users and small businesses can use it under the terms
of GPL, but companies with annual revenue >= $xxxxx require a
commercial license."
Or something roughly along those lines anyway.
Under the terms of the GPL, it's not feasible to set an arbitrary
revenue limit like that, as those getting the source under the GPL are
free to redistribute it to anyone they like. However, since the GPLv2
doesn't deal with software patents, it may be possible to set such a
revenue limit with patent licensing, ie license the software patents
employed in the code for free to those you mentioned but charge for the
patents with larger businesses.
Come to think of it, the size/revenue-limit stuff I've seen may have all
just been plain old closed-source.
The big drawbacks are that dual licensing requires full copyright
assignment from anyone who contributes to the GPL'd code, or the company
won't be able to re-license those patches commercially,
Good point. I wasn't aware of that. (One of the dangers of GPL: It's too
big and convoluted to really grok.)
The dual-licensing model doesn't make sense with permissive licenses
like BSD/MIT/zlib/boost so they use a different model, where they
provide an "open core" of BSD-licensed code for free and then charge for
proprietary features added through closed-source patches,
Ahh, ok. Now that makes sense. That method hadn't occurred to me. (I
don't know *why* it didn't. I mean, using the "temporarily closed
source" you mention below, it's basically the id/Carmack model.)
I don't like that it's still requires a closed element, but still, it's
definitely something worth considering, especially the "time limit" version.
sometimes called "freemium."
I'm accustomed to "freemium" referring to so-called "free to play"
gaming, but yea, I can see how it applies here too.
This is the model Apple and Google/Samsung use with
iOS and Android, only the most successful software projects of the last
decade, :) though Android obviously makes available a lot more open
source than iOS does.
Yea, true.
Yea. I hate that the mixing is necessary, but big business has all the
money, and big business likes closed/proprietary, so if you want some
of the money (*or* just a significant chunk of the market), then you
have to please them enough to get them to fork it over. *Then* you can
go from there and swing around as much clout as you've earned.
It's sickening, but that's where things are right now. At least it
beats the hell out of the Windows model. And it *could* still lead to
further acceptance of and demand for even more openness. Like burgers
or crack: Give 'em a taste, maybe they'll like it and want more. And
maybe by then you'll have earned enough clout that you'll be *able* to
given them more.
The world may not be ready for full-on Stallman openness yet, but the
mixed model at least gets the foot in the door. It's a step in the
right direction.
I have argued, on the contrary, that the mixed model is the best one,
not pure open or closed source:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing
I think the evidence is in that my article from four years ago called it
right. :)
Could be. That is a fairly convincing article, at least for the "time
limit" version of mixed closed/open.
But in any case, even if one takes the Stallman "all must be open,
period" stance, the mixed stuff is STILL a step in the desired
direction. So regardless of whether or not mixed is the final end-goal,
it's still a good direction to taking.
