Though you protest that you are not against open source, I think your words
betray that protestation; certainly, arguing that those who support or
develop open source software "never sell open source directly, there is
always some 'trick'" - - is not exactly a praiseworthy outlook.  In that
regard, I am doubtful that you are raising an earnest argument. Even so,
your point overlooks a critical detail: there is no restriction against
selling software. That the open source model renders it less likely that a
vendor will succeed in selling open source software is not the same as a
restriction against doing so.  Of course, one aim of open source
development, it seems to me, is that those who desire to make commercial use
of the work of others add value before doing so. I do not understand how
someone may properly characterize this as a "trick" or imply that success
with open source is based on a delusion.

- Rod

> 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
> > open source dual -licensing - - the program that should do better is the
> > latter, not because it has a "closed source" counterpart, but because of
> > 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
> > be problems with free-riding), but, in the main, the dual licensing
> > will do better than the closed source proprietary model; hence, the
> > significant feature of dual-licensing is its connection to the open
> > 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
> > 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

license-discuss archive is at

Reply via email to