Slashdot Mirror
The Cathedral In The Bazaar?
replicant_deckard writes "This opinion piece I wrote to Open explains how dual licensing (simultaneous use of both GPL and proprietary license) works. Dual licensing gives you basically both the support of the community and a profitable Microsoft-like business model. Seems that this model used by MySQL and TrollTech is getting more popular. Now my question is where are the limits?"
... are where one license conflicts with the other. Why put artificial limits on it?
Why is everything that gets posted on Slashdot these days either:
A) A write-up done by someone boasting about their latest article, experiment, or "product",
or
B) A write-up done by one of the editors that sounds sneakily like an inside-job advertisement done to line the wallets of VA, OSDN, Slashdot, or whoever the hell owns this site these days
Just an honest question -- don't mean to offend anyone.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
Where'd you last use them?
I swear, you'd lose your head if it wasn't attached at the shoulders.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
This is a great way for software to develop.
It allows companies to sell closed source versions of software that they develop and it also allows the community to develop changes. If the community gets large enough it may even out pace the starting company, or if there isn't much community than the company will just get all the nice security patches that open source is so good for.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Sounds awful.
sulli
RTFJ.
They seem to be finding a way to use/contribute to open source software while maintaining a rather large amount of closed stuff.
The author should have researched his "piece" before he had it "published." After reading the article, I found a lot of overview with nothing to say. What? MySQL has both an open source and commerical license? What are the differences? Well, maybe it's on page 2.
It only works for software that is a platform for other software, which quite frankly is not the majority of software out there.
For this to be sustainable, you need lots of other companies that like your platform but wants to create proprietary software. This also means that the Free Software Foundation might not like it too much, but that is probably something absolutely everyone cares about.
IMO, this is OK because with Aqua (the user front end for OS X) Apple is really selling the user experience, not just a powerful tool. It's still software but the goal is different. I think of Warcraft 3: they are really selling the experience; the artwork should be proprietary, while the engine that runs it should be open. That's just what I've been thinking recently.
So to anyone else that wants to read the article (and you have shockwave, etc), please turn off the animation before you give yourself a headache ;-)
--gal
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
I've been working on an open-source GIS project for several years and have sold a few copies. I'd love to be able to support myself and a few employees in our venture, and until that happens, I'll just keep working on it, like a prospector searching for a vein of gold.
Personal Strap-On Aircraft for Auction on eBay
I think this is a great idea because you get the best of both worlds. You're able to sell your code to people who want to use it in closed source products AND if it is any good it gets used in open source products. The more it gets used in open source projects, the more companies there will be who come knocking at your door wanting to license it from you.
One of the main values of open source is that it provides a viable alternative to closed source solutions. You don't get stuck with whatever Microsoft or Oracle or Sun wants you to have. It also allows solutions to be custom tailored to fit a particular problem or situation. The downside to it is that it is often difficult at best to actually make money creating open source products. The people who make money are the ones who USE the products to achieve a result that would be expensive or impossible using closed source solutions. IN other words it is the customers of open source vendors who reap the biggest profits from open source.
When open source vendors dual license their products we all win. The vendors win, the open source community wins, and the companies that want to license it for closed-source work win. Everyone gets what they want and that is not a bad scenario at all.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Vita Nuova say in their most recent newsletter that they are considering "a dual-licence scheme that makes the Inferno software free for non-commercial use, but with a more traditional software licence for commercial use."
A quick glance at the features of the upcoming release reveals some clarification on this:
Inferno is the very interesting cousin OS to Plan 9 (both modern descendants of UNIX). This would be a very cool thing.
I understand that there are original copyright holders who are different from the GPL itself, and those copyright holders retain many rights. But I though once the code was out under GPL that was pretty much it.
Is it just where you get the code? Same source, but a different text file to read and click "ok" on? So someone agrees to a different license in exchange for something else (better support, in Mandrakes case). Whereas if you got the source under GPL the copyright owner can't retro-actively change your righs to something else? But you can voluntarely agree to a different license?
That's the only way I can figure this would work. IA like way NAL, so I can't figure this out. Does anyone know for sure?
The catch, if you are in the business of selling software, is that you need to own the copyright to all of the pieces. You are fine as long as nobody makes a successful fork. If that happens, though, you won't be able to sell that version (except under the GPL).
So you need to keep the outside developers sufficiently happy that this won't happen. MySQL seems to have managed it. And various others. But you better have a large working product before you start. Some people have taken some BSD licensed code, polished it, and re-issued it under new license. That can work. It seems, to me, to be a bit unfair to the original coders (unless those are the people doing the relicensing), but it perfectly legit under the license, and the BSD folk say they don't mind.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Seriously, why presume that there are limits? There doesn't need to be any. Many grand things, good and bad, came from folks deciding that they didn't want to be limited.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I was actually just thinking about this recently. A lot of people are clammoring for decent linux games, and why not? If we get a few good 'nix games, then we could see a lot of people at least trying the OS, if not moving over. On a DVD, you could have a crapload of drivers etc, make the disk bootable, and run without even loading off the hard-disk (except for savegames, etc). A DVD should be big enough to fit a scaled down linux OS, the game, and a bunch of graphics/etc drivers (with an autodetect, or again, something to save the config to the drive).
Here's where I get stuck though: how do I make a 'nix game without making it entirely open source, if I want to make a profit but not have to write a million GPL modules or pay large licensing fees? I was thinking that one could: Write the entire engine source available. Make the game art, meshes, maybe even the config files copyrighted. I'm not sure if this would conflict.
If it worked, you've got a fully workable game that people aren't allowed to copy (due to copyright on the artwork, etc). Since the game itself is open source, and only the characters etc are copyrighted, is there a GPL conflict? One could write a new game on the engine, or run the game with custom graphics (isn't the the current context of people using old doom/quake/etc engines).
The only problem I would think of is: you probably have to make the engine easily acquried, and have the art addons entirely seperate on a sale disk - or can everything that can be o/s available on the same disk, and have it as a product with documentation outlining what belongs to whom, and what is actually being paid for.
Code wants to be free... but talent and hard work work hopefully earn some money still, or 'nix-first games will still be a whiff of smoke in the future.
The problem, as I see it, is what happens when someone in the open source community contributes a significant module of code, rather than a small patch.
They've written a piece of code, probably in a separate source file, put the GPL comment at the top and sent it to you. Surely they, by law, automatically own the copyright for this code, and they've released it under the GPL.
So what right do you have to then go releasing it under your commercial non-GPL license?
What about allowing open access to the internals of your code and all of its objects along with documenting how it works without releasing the source?
Say the way the Cocoa Application kit works. All of the code is closed source, but any developer can use the objects in the application kit or write their own objects to replace ones that Apple wrote.
In principle any Cocoa application's objects can be accessed by any other app.... in essance every Cocoa app is a mini Application kit without the documentation.
This might be a way to open up your program for other developers to enhance and use in their own apps without giving away any of your source. This would work especially well with the free as in beer programs. (hey kids, download my super enhanced iPhoto that enhances the free iPhoto that you already have)
Apple could open up the objects in the iApps for third party developers and get many of the benefits they would get from open sourcing the apps without having to worry about someone porting the apps to a competing platform. Such a strategy could work well for other harware vendors like Sun or IBM.
yeah there are problems with this, but this might be a new middle-ground between open and closed source.
of course, a big problem is what if apple takes away the free app that the code you wrote depends on... maybe if that happens the developers that use the code that got yanked could get together and write an open source repcement (like Gnustep)
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Does that seem a tad simplistic to anyone else? MySQL AB offers MySQL and that's it. Their money maker is both open and closed, and both free and retail(I suppose the same is true of Trolltech, but I know nothing about it so I won't comment on it). However, with MS the situation is much murkier though the author tries to paint a pretty picture. Sure they offer some stuff for free and a couple of their things are open sourced, but drawing a direct comparison between them and MySQL AB seems...strained to me. The only way such a comparison could be drawn would be if MS offered both open-source and free versions of their OS and/or Office Suites (ie, their money makers). Lumping them in with MySQL AB just because they give away their XML parser or a browser doesn't quite cut it.
Maybe. But I think it's more likely that it shifts the focus to a different kind of pirate. In addition to all the guys grabbing software for free off of Napster, there are the businesses using more licenses for software than they claim and it's this group of pirates that will probably be seen as a problem.
He must mean free as in "with strings attached".
Anyway, while I think open source and free software has its place, I've yet to be convinced that it can be provided unilaterally in all areas (ie provided in such a way that business can maintain the same or greater profit levels as they'd have if the product was closed and/or retail )...however, the author of this article comes just short of claiming this (but I know he was thinking it, dammit!), so I won't criticize him on something he didn't write. However it's only a matter of time before an article gets posted which says this, so I'll keep my flame thrower handy.
My company has two software products (libraries for developers). One is under an open-source license and the other is under a proprietary license. They are designed to work together, with the properietary one providing more business oriented features to complement the open-source one. Licensing of the proprietary product also funds internal development of the open-source tool.
It would be advantagous to GPL the second product, in addition to licensing it commercially. This would allow people who want use it for open-source or otherwise noncommercial projects to use it free of charge. This is a good thing, as it provides a greater user base for the product and provides marketing and testing.
My only concern with doing this is the issue of piracy. Some people/companies simply wouldn't pay $1000 for a single-server license of a product when they can simply download it and use it for free (albeit illegally). I don't have any interest in fighting piracy in cases where the product would not otherwise have been purchased in the first place, but I am somewhat concerned that smaller companies using the software on smaller projects would simply elect to believe that they are in the right using the GPL version in a commercial capacity. Obviously it would be made very clear that use of a GPL library in a commercial offering is prohibited by the GPL.
Being a corporation, a core motive is to generate a good profit, so the primary factor in this decision is which licensing policy will provide the greatest profit. I couldn't care less if the GPL/proprietary model generates twice the piracy of the proprietary-only model in the event that it also generates twice the profit.
The question on my mind is: "How many sales would I lose to people using the non-commercial version for commercial purposes?"
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
I am a bit annoyed by the constant mis-reading of the Cathedral and the Bazzar. ESR was originally exploring why the Linux kernel (aka the "Bazzar") progressed so fast without any published plan, nor an explicit patch inclusion process, and chaotically open mailing list. This was compared with FSF projects like gcc (aka. the "Cathedral"). Who had explict project goals and schedules, an elite group of patch committers, and a closed mailing list.
CatB is not about Open vs. Commercial (usually closed). I do grant that Commercial is nearly always closed "Cathedral"-like development. But not always. The programming language Rexx was developed in IBM in a process like the "Bazzar". This worked because IBM mainframe community was pretty big and had good communications.
So MySQL having GPL and Proprietary licencesing policies, does not make it both Cathedral and Bazzar. It has nearly always been Bazzar-like (though clearly they had fixed committers and some planning about features).
Sheesh!
-- I am not a fanatic, I am a true believer.
I've published a few obscure pieces of code under the GPL. Though I never actively tryied to sell commercial licenses, I was approached by one company and was paid several thousand dollars for a commercial license. Not bad for somthing obscure that I never expected to make money on. Imagine what a person could make writing more mainstream GPL'd code. For such things, public release under the GPL is like free advertising.
I recommend that software authors who are interested in trying this with the GPL'd code place prominent notices in their README files and web pages, because some potential customers may not be aware that they can negotiate a non-GPL license from the copyright owner.
Your question is pretty subjective. "Stuff that matters" to me might not matter to you.
I read newspapers and their
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
this is wrong. the dual licensed program allows you to develop, extend, and redistribute the software without GPL entanglements. for instance: i am a teacher. i am thinking of writing a grade program using mysql and having a web component. let's say i wanted to keep the program closed, i can't do it with the GPL'd mysql. i can't redistribute mysql with the closed program. but, if i GPL the grade program, then i can redistribute mysql no problem. so, for the "privilege" of keeping my program closed and using mysql, i have to pay for it. so there is market value.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
First of all, you can really only dual-license if there is something to sell. That means dual-licensed open source software needs to have one of the less "business-oriented" open source licenses, like the GPL. But for some software, the GPL just isn't appropriate. For example, for a GUI toolkit, if it is GPL'ed, that limits its adoption.
Also, with dual-licensed software, companies have other considerations in mind than just creating technically the best possible software or the best software for the users. They may want to try to dominate a particular market niche and exclude competition, for example.
I think in the case of Troll Tech, both of these apply. Companies like Sun and IBM have chosen Gnome because they did not want to hand the keys to commercial applications for their desktops to some small company that they have no control over. Furthermore, Troll Tech has a strong incentive to have something like Qt/Embedded take over the entire display--if people could use free or competing toolkits on something like the Sharp Zaurus, it would threaten their revenue stream.
I think dual licensing can make sense in some circumstances, but I think it's risky. If you are considering using dual-licensed software, I think you would do well to look at the license, business, and track record very carefully. Personally, I think for MySQL it works, but for Qt, it doesn't.
So I'm going to be selling it, while inviting people to add features. Hmm. I don't think I can expect anyone in the "open source community" to add code to this projct and then let me sell their stuff. Heck, I'd probably have reservations about donating significant amounts of code to someone else's business. How many people would spend hours working on a piece of code, knowing that someone else is going to sell that code and pocket the money... while the volunteer developer gets, at most, some personal satisfaction? Is that "volunteering" or just "exploitation?"
If someone adds an interesting feature to the applicatin, I can see myself paying for the right to add it to the commercial version, but I can also see it being a real pain in the butt to haggle over the price of every contributed feature. Said butt-pain may not be worth the revenue.
Volunteerism is what makes open source strong. If two people get interested in contributing to the GPLed version, that's twice as many people as are contributing to the commercial code base (i.e. me). Eventually, the GPLed version will almost certainly exceed the functionality of the commercial version. So, my revenue would hit zero, and the commercial thing would be a waste of my time and money. But can I have my cake and eat it too? :-)
Two ideas come to mind...
One, open the source with a license other than the GPL. Let people modify it for their own use, but not distribute binaries with their changes. That way the coder community can play with it all they want, while presenting little competition to the commercial version (whose target market doesn't know a compiler from a linker).
Two, hope that what I've created so far is interesting enough that people will play with it and extend it for their own purposes, just because it's fun to play with it and extend it. In exchange for providing this platform to build on, I ask that any additions they choose to distribute be licensed to me for addition to the platform. In other words, hope that what I've created is so much fun to play with that people will pay me to extend it for their purposes, and payment will be in the form of the code to their extensions.
Seems like a long shot, but it's an interesting idea.
(Practically speaking, this whole commercial concept sounds like more trouble than it's worth. I have a day job, I like it, it pays better than this ever will... The best use of my time and energy might just be to open the source, offer guidance to anyone who wants to extend the code, and enjoy the ride. But theoretically speaking, making a little money on the side would be neat, and dual licensing presents some interesting issues.)
Build stuff. Stuff that walks, stuff that rolls, whatever.
Dual-licensing works extremely well in one specific case of open-source software, namely that where there is no confusion about copyright ownership. If a project gets numerous submissions from external contributors, they either have to sign-over ownership, or the project has to fork. Neither are really satisfactory.
But for projects working ex-Cathedra, where external developers provide feedback and perhaps patches but no significant functional extensions, the dual licensing model can work very well indeed.
My company has made open source tools since 1995 or so, and we've now switched from a BSD-style license to a GPL / or commercial license model. Our motivation was (a) guided by Stallman's comments about BSD licenses helping commercial companies at the expense of open-source projects, which we agreed with, and (b) the desire of some customers for some kind of commercial framework.
Since 1995, we've found that there are very few people able and willing to contribute to our software, even though there are thousands happy to use it. Possibly because our tool are somewhat complex internally. So, the dual-license model fits our process perfectly.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.