Ok, since you bit the academic discussion, here it goes.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
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.
I fully agree.
And of course with only the words "closes" and "open" you must call "closed" to the entirely closed and "open" to the partially open.
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.
The dual-licensing requires a market need for *closed* source. How can this be in line with the open source ideals?
(Please note I'm not at all against practising the dual-licensing model, given the current state of affairs.)
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
