If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other through open source dual -licensing - - the program that should do better is the latter, not because it has a "closed source" counterpart, but because of the benefits that follow from the open source version. No doubt there may be exceptions in practice (a project may not be managed carefully or there may be problems with free-riding), but, in the main, the dual licensing model will do better than the closed source proprietary model; hence, the significant feature of dual-licensing is its connection to the open source development method. If you disagree, then you disagree with some of the ideas underlying open source, which is not the same as making a case against the logic of the dual-licensing model.
- Rod ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marius Amado Alves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "OSI license discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:55 AM Subject: Re: Dual licensing > Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > > I agree with the point that the creative spark is not communitarian. My > > point -- if we are to use Eric Raymond's book as an example (see Raymond's > > busness model "8 Free the Software, Sell the Brand") -- is that dual > > licensing IS an authentic open source model. > > This is just words, but anyway: dual-licensing involves a closed source > license as much as an open one; in business terms, even more, because > that's where the money is. So dual-licensing is really less an "open > source model" than a "closed" one. I'd really like to be shown any > essential flaw in this reasoning. But as I said, it's just words, > academic, not important, not pressing, don't waiste your time. Thanks. > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
