Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is that what we are selling is not publically available except through us (or our customers if they choose to distribute it). I presume that you see the shifting target.
Of course. First you explained (very well) how undercutting was not an issue in practice, and then you indicated that what you really sell is a closed part. These are the two different targets.
This is a weird argument all the way around. Nobody disputes that Red Hat is selling open source software and services. Nobody disputes that they are a successful company. What else do you need to see for an example of commercial open source?
Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. And mainly support (Red Hat Enterprise etc.) Not the open software (Fedora).
Please understand that I am not "against" any known or existing open source business models. And I do not dispute some work well in practice. I merely note that:
- you never sell open source directly, there is always some 'trick'
- one of tricks, dual-licensing, is based on the market need for closed source, 'against' open source ideals
I merely try to discuss these issues here in as much as they relate to license terms. For example: dual-licensing requires a 'viral' license; open source direct sale seems to discriminate and break clause 6, and stop being open source; etc.
And note a possible conclusion is simply: that's the way it is, business has 'tricks', these are the open source ones.
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
