Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Software w/ Source for Sale?

Posted by Cliff on from the one-step-away-from-open-source dept.

frambooz asks: "As the GNU public license (amongst others) describes, you can make software that is free (as in freedom), but you don't have to make it *free* (as in free beer). I'm wondering if industry officials are aware of this fact, however. Do you know of any software packages that are Open Source, but still require you to purchase them? Did you ever work on such a project as a programmer yourself? If so, how did the development differ from a free(dom)/free(beer) Open Source application?"

73 comments

  1. Some.. by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

    Quake 2, the Marathon series etc etc. Game companies seem to understand it. Of course Linux, but I don't think it counts.

    1. Re:Some.. by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have any games companies released a game that used the GPL version of the Quake 2 engine? It would seem to me that it's a pretty good deal: just stick a tar of the source on the CD and you've forefilled the requirements of the GPL. Of course, your content need not be distributed under the GPL.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Some.. by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Game companies seem to understand it.

      Game companies have the luxury of a significant part of their product being covered by the 'non free' license of copyright - textures, level maps, music, etc. Unlike most software, a great deal of the value in a game is *not* in the source code.

      It's substantially harder to sell "free as in freedom" (how I hate that term) software when the only real component of value in it *is* the source code, because your first customer can then turn around and give away (or even resell) your product.

      As an aside, I expect to see more companies starting to use a tactic like this to create products using "free as in freedom" software without having to give away a fully functional version in source form by integrating non-source-code "stuff" that isn't covered by the GPL. Theo's copyright on the OpenBSD CD structure is a primitive example. Copyrighted filenames (if possible ?) would probably also be a similar way of stopping someone else just grabbing your source code, recompiling it and on-selling your product without having to expend time themselves renaming all the source files.

    3. Re:Some.. by Cryogenes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Surely, a game using the Quake 2 engine is a derived work of that engine. So if you want to release such a game you either do it under the GPL or you pay id for a commercial license of the engine.

      BTW, that is the same trick that Borland used for Kylix. You can use the free version of Kylix, but if you do, you can only distribute your programs under the GPL. If you pay for Kylix, you can distribute your programs any way you like.

    4. Re:Some.. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Although I see your point, it would be very difficult to argue that a model file or a wall texture is somehow derived from the Quake 2 source code. If you made any changes to the engine you'd have to release those changes when you distributed the engine, but your artwork could legally be distributed with any license.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Some.. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      There is nothing in the GPL that prevents you from charging for your files.

      The GPLed version of Q2 does not include textures, wads, maps, etc... Give away the engine for free under the GPL and charge for your content. After all of this time, I'm not sure how good your sales are going to be.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. Redhat EL 3? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Informative

    You must buy the enterprise versions of Redhat, and you get the source, but not the source to some of their proprietary stuff.. ..

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:Redhat EL 3? by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can rebuild a complete RHEL3 (minus the few bits of proprietary stuff I haven't noticed yet) from the public source, so long as you change the name and remove any Red Hat trademarks.

      Some RHEL3 based distributions:
      http://www.centos.org/
      http://whiteboxlinux.org/
      http://taolinux.org/

    2. Re:Redhat EL 3? by somebodyinthewww · · Score: 1

      The binary distribution of RHEL is not free, but you can get the SRPMs off RedHat's FTP server (that there is not 1 mention of on their web site). There are a few projects like Whitebox Enterprise Linux that simple take Red Hat's SRPMs, rebuild them, package it in an ISO and upload it to the net. Some of RedHats proprietary stuff isn't open source, I see the point. I hate companies that claim they are dedicated to open source, but then decide to start releasing closed-source stuff.

      --
      -- Somebody stuck somewhere in a big world wide web that I can't escape from
    3. Re:Redhat EL 3? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Do you happen to know off hand (or have a URL) of what RedHat doesnt release as OSS? I would suspect that most, if not all, of the RH stuff that isnt OSS was stuff they got through aquisitions, rather then stuff they built inhouse.

  3. How about Qt? by swillden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you know of any software packages that are Open Source, but still require you to purchase them?

    How about Trolltech's Qt for Windows? It's strictly commercial, but comes with source code. Actually lots of commercial development tools and libraries fit this model, probably because programmers find tools that provide source code to be much more useful. It's also quite common among certain software packages used by big business: packages that have to be heavily customized. Every large-scale point-of-sale software package (e.g. the software that runs the checkout lanes at the grocery store) comes with a source license, or makes one available for a reasonable fee (which everyone buys as a matter of course).

    Binary-only software is a very new thing, historically. It was really quite uncommon prior to the rise of microcomputers, probably because the people who ran and managed the workstations, minis and mainframes were largely programmers and they found that software with source was more useful (who'da thunkit?).

    If you're referring to software that is licensed under an open source license that allows redistribution, then no, I don't think you'll find too many packages that fit the model, and I don't think authors who try to do that will be immensely successful at selling software. But selling software with source works just fine, thanks to the power of copyright law. And selling services and support around truly Free Software works pretty well also.

    Actually, I think that people who expect copyright protection for binary-only software are abusing copyright. The purpose of the law is to promote the growth of science and useful arts by encouraging publication, so that other people can learn from the ideas to create even more stuff. But these days we allow people to eat their cake and have it too; they can both obtain society's help in protecting their source code from illicit copying *and* they can also keep it secret to prevent people from learning their ideas. IMO, if you don't want to publish source code, you shouldn't get copyright protection for your source code. Use trade secret law to protect it. That's not as good, because under trade secret law if someone leaks it you can only go after the leaker, not anyone else who distributed the now-public information, but that's the tradeoff you should have to make: If I publish my ideas so others can build on them, then society will help me make sure no one copies my code, or creats unauthorized derivative works. If I keep my ideas secret, then I have to protect my code myself (I can still get copyright protection on the published binaries, however).

    Unfortunately, old copyright law never foresaw that it might be possible to publish your work while simultaneously keeping it secret, and new copyright law has forgotten all about the need to balance private vs. public good.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:How about Qt? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Qt for Windows isn't Free Software.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:How about Qt? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Qt for Windows isn't Free Software.

      That's what I said. Thanks for the affirmation.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:How about Qt? by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

      He means Qt for windows is not released under the GPL (which I believe the submitter was referring to by "free as in freedom"), even though the source is included.

    4. Re:How about Qt? by GeorgeMcBay · · Score: 1


      Binary-only software is a very new thing, historically. It was really quite uncommon prior to the rise of microcomputers...

      Are you living in the 80s? Because binary-only software became pretty prevalent in the mid-1970s, which is some 30 years ago. That might be recent in terms of, say, the history of humans, but is not particularly recent in terms of the history of programmable computers. It happened at about the halfway mark, in today's terms, which isn't exactly recent.

    5. Re:How about Qt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Qt for Windows isn't Free Software.

      So you're like, retarded, right?

    6. Re:How about Qt? by andyfaeglasgow · · Score: 1
      The purpose of the law [copyright] is to promote the growth of science and useful arts by encouraging publication...

      I think that you may mean patents here. But I agree with your sentiment

    7. Re:How about Qt? by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that you may mean patents here.

      Patents and copyrights both arise from this same underlying theory, and the same bit of the US Constitution. There are differences in the legal implementation because it makes sense to strike a different balance between the public and private interests for mechanisms than it does for expressions.

      The reason copyright law has never explicitly required publication (unlike patents) is that without publication there was no way the author could commercially exploit his/her work, so there was no need to make that part of it explicit. The monopoly was intended to provide a measure of control to people who wanted to publish, since the nature of expressive works (writings, music, etc.) is such that once the material is published the creator loses all control of it, absent legal protections. Then software came along and it made sense to publish binaries and keep the source secret. One of the key assumptions made by the copyright laws -- but not the theory under the laws -- was invalidated by new technology.

      In fact there *was* a sort of publication requirement to copyright law up until 1976: To gain protection you had to register your copyright and to register you had to file a copy of your work with the Copyright Office, who made available to everyone via the Library of Congress. That is actually still true except that as of 1976 you only have to register if you're going to litigate and you only have to file the first few pages and last few pages of any long work. The changes were primarily made to keep the Copyright Office from being buried in the ever-increasing flow of copyrighted material, but a side effect was that it made it possible to obtain copyright protection for something that is not published at all.

      And, of course, something that is never published will never fall into the public domain, so why should the public protect it the author's monopoly on it? The author has kept it secret, so the author should just maintain control that way. Trade secret law even provides some enforcement tools.

      Patents always explicitly required publication, because it was always possible to use/sell a mechanism without publishing it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:How about Qt? by quenda · · Score: 1

      > Because binary-only software became pretty prevalent in the mid-1970s, which is some 30 years ago.

      About the time of the "rise of microcomputers", as he said.

    9. Re:How about Qt? by quenda · · Score: 1

      > Patents and copyrights both arise from this same underlying theory, and the same bit of the US Constitution.

      So you think Patents and copyrights are USA inventions then? Bloody arrogant yanks. From the constitution !!??? arrrgh!

    10. Re:How about Qt? by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      So you think Patents and copyrights are USA inventions then? Bloody arrogant yanks. From the constitution !!??? arrrgh!

      Of course not. But I was talking about US law. Sorry for the America-centrism, but slashdot *is* an unabashedly American web site, even if there are visitors from all over.

      But, to give credit where credit is due, copyrights were actually invented by the British primarily as a means of censorship. This type of copyright started out as sort of an agreement about publisher's rights (publishers owned what they printed, not authors) and was formalized in the Licensing Act in the mid 1600's (sorry, don't remember the year off the top of my head) which gave a monopoly on all printing to the Stationers' Company of London. In exchange for this monopoly, the Company agreed not to publish anything the Crown didn't like.

      The first modern copyright law, which attempts to promote authorship, also originated from the UK, in the form of the Statue of Anne, passed in 1709. It gave copyrights to authors and established the term of 28 years, which the young United States adopted nearly 100 years later.

      The origin of the the basic structure of the copyright law in effect in the US and around the world today was defined in the Berne Convention in the late 1800s. The Berne Convention established copyrights that are automatic, without the need for registration, and last the life of the author plus 50 years. The US didn't fully adopt this approach to copyright law until 1976 and 1998.

      All of that said, in the US, the power of Congress to establish copyright laws arises from a specific passage of the US Constitution. Further, the philosophy underlying US copyright law was, for nearly two hundred years, really defined by a series of letters between Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, who defined the basic social contract that US copyright law has been based upon. This American view of copyright had subtle but important differences from the British and European views, based on the relative importance early Americans placed on freedom of speech and action. The American view of copyright was much more skeptical of the value of granting monopolies. Was. No more, unfortunately.

      Now, should I close with some snide comment about knee-jerking Limeys? Nahhh.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. Dont confuse GPL and open source by prostoalex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, that's how the things usually work in the embedded world from the startof the industry. In the embedded programming you do need to customize the purchased packages occasionally, as you switch to different architectures, different chips within the same architectures and so on.

    So you buy a software product (TCP/IP stack, or some drivers), and they usually come with the royalty-free source. You cannot resell the product, but you can embed the product in your own system and resell that. The source belongs to the original manufacturer and is free for you to tinker with.

    That's kinda the way the things always were in the embedded world, too many people are confusing the GPL and GNU ideology with the concept of having sources on additional CD with the product you purchased.

    1. Re:Dont confuse GPL and open source by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I think the poster of the original article is not clear on the term "open source" that he uses. He indicates this in wondering if "industry officials" are aware that they can charge for open source stuff per the GPL. He is probably thinking of what I would call "source included". That would not be under an open redistribution license, as the GPL is. Most companies would not go for that because there's no way to make people buy it anymore.

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
  5. selling a product vs. download by urdine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Internet lays bare an interesting human trait - that people are willing to pay for a product in a physical form that they could grasp from the ether for free.

    Examples: People who bought RedHat in the store for the box, the manual, and the CD, rather than downloading it. Same thing when people buy the PDF version of an online article so they can print it out or just "keep" it - people do this more than you would think.

    I think there is real value added by having a physical product, and some of the bigger open source software projects should do this if possible. Not only is it another way to get funding for the project, but it's actually something a lot of people want. Wouldn't you like to have Wikipedia 1.0 sitting over your desk?

    1. Re:selling a product vs. download by Tyrdium · · Score: 1

      The examples you gave are fairly... poor... Do I print copies of stuff available online? Sure, it's easier to read on paper than on my monitor. Would I buy a copy of Redhat in stores? If I were a Redhat user, sure. It comes with a warranty, plus I get a printed manual (again, easier to read), and CDs (saves on download time), plus usually some extras (e.g., a program disk). On the other hand, there are some things I'd rather have in a digital version than a physical version. I'd much rather use dictionary.com instead of a dictionary to look up a word, because it's much, much faster, and I'm usually at my computer anyway. Some of my textbooks, I'd like to have on a ebook (like the kind Sony just came out with a few months ago, the ones with the high-contrast displays), to save on weight. Same goes with games. I'd rather have an ISO that I can load easily, than a CD that I have to go hunting for.

    2. Re:selling a product vs. download by augustw · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't you like to have Wikipedia 1.0 sitting over your desk?

      I woudn't even want Wikipedia 1.0 hanging on a nail in the shithouse.

    3. Re:selling a product vs. download by grotgrot · · Score: 1

      Actually some of us bought RedHat at the store after downloading it. It turned out that the only way to give them money was by doing that. Yes, I emailled the sales department asking if I could pay for a copy and there was no need to actually send me anything. They insisted I could only buy it from them with some exorbitant shipping fee or at my local store. Not that it matters any more since they decided they no longer wanted my money.

  6. Very few people try that route by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    I don't think you'll find anyone selling software with the source available under the GPL. Instead, they usually use a slightly more compatible liscence that doesn't translate into competitors starting up on sourceforge, or a dual liscencing scheme. If the GPL and money matters that much to you, typically you come up with a different revenue approach. The FSF sells manuals, T Shirts and accepts donations. Some people sell contracting services or hardware. ESR wrote one of those faux authortarian articles on the subject that actually has a degree of credibility.

    Programs that qualify as Open Source that come to mind is the new xchat, qt was for a while (not sure if it still is), and maybe the Enterprise Redhat.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

    1. Re:Very few people try that route by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't work anymore. As another poster pointed out, EMACS was once sold that way. That said, I don't think it would work anymore. If it's under the GPL, people can redistribute it. So anyone could buy it, and then once they got their hands on the source, publish it to the web for everyone else for free. Now there is no point is selling the source with it anymore. While it may have once worked (and I don't know about that), it wouldn't work anymore unless EVERY SINGLE USER kept the source to themselves. I don't think that would happen.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  7. Forgive my ignorance, but how? by SteWhite · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I am missing something here, maybe someone can enlighten me.

    How can you give away the source for free, yet also charge for the software? What stops people just downloading the source and compiling it, without paying? Or do you just rely on people/companies being good enough to CHOOSE to pay for it, when then don't actually have to?

    Thanks in advance to anyone who has a better understanding of the GPL than I and can give a simple explanation!

    1. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      The poster was saying that once you buy a license for the product (usually flat rate), you will get the source code included with the release.

      I've seen quite a few smaller java libraries released like this. It makes sense when you're dealing with small software component developers. If for some reason they go belly up or disappear (which happens often with little guys), you aren't forced to rip out the code and throw it away.

      I can't say that this type of distribution would work well for many different software industries, but for some like the example above, it works great. Another idea would be to place code in escrow. If for some reason the developer is unable to fulfill an agreed upon service, the code is given to the buyer of the service.

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can you give away the source for free, yet also charge for the software? What stops people just downloading the source and compiling it, without paying?

      The build process for some things is not trivial... Some of the big distros - SuSE and Redhad enterprise versions don't (and I could be wrong, but bare with me) have the source code available. Reproducing those distros in the binary bootable iso format is not for the faint of heart. Look at the elbow grease it took to get White Box Linux - compiled from the source of RHEL - up and running. In corporate, it is often easier to buy open source kit than get it running yourself. As a bonus, you get someone else to take care of the maintenance....

      --
      +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
    3. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by byolinux · · Score: 1

      Um, free software is not about price. You can quite easily sell a GPL product and give the source code to the people who PAY you for it.

      You can't stop them giving your GPL program away though, however you could only give away new versions of the source to people who've paid you, or you could use a license key and web activation for the binaries.

      You could even make a license key style system for your compile job, or tie your product to a hardware dongle.

      All ways that could be expanded on.

      --
      Join the Free Software Foundation
    4. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's "bear with me", not "bare with me".

      P.S. I put the punctuation outside the quotations intentionally.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    5. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      One of the hazards of posting from a mobile phone... the 'guess to what I am trying to spell' does not always get it right (grin)

      --
      +++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
    6. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to supply the software for download... It is permissible to *sell* GPL programs, and only make the source available to people who bought it from you.

      You can charge as much as you like for the software. If it is required for someones business, and they buy it, there is pressure for *them* to not redistribute (and lose competitive advantage).

      If *you* actually have a contribution, it is reasonable for "people/companies" to pay you. Otherwise, they lose your contribution. Call it a "support model" if you want.

      Of course if someone ELSE gets hold of the software, then they can distribute it. Doesn't help the users much -- because "support" isn't available. Still, can be pain in the ass...

      Ratboy.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    7. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The build process for some things is not trivial... Some of the big distros - SuSE and Redhad enterprise versions don't (and I could be wrong, but bare with me) have the source code available. Reproducing those distros in the binary bootable iso format is not for the faint of heart. Look at the elbow grease it took to get White Box Linux - compiled from the source of RHEL - up and running. In corporate, it is often easier to buy open source kit than get it running yourself. As a bonus, you get someone else to take care of the maintenance....

      True enough, but keep in mind that "hard work" only has to be done _once_ by someone prepared to give it away and the value of that software disappears.

    8. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by Yaztromo · · Score: 2
      How can you give away the source for free, yet also charge for the software? What stops people just downloading the source and compiling it, without paying? Or do you just rely on people/companies being good enough to CHOOSE to pay for it, when then don't actually have to?

      If you're distributing an end-user product targeted towards non-techies, many of them simply don't want to be bothered with having to compile and set-up everything. They don't want to have to ensure they have a compiler installed (remember: other than Linux/*BSD/OSX, most consumer OS's of the last 10 years don't come with a compiler), and all of the necessary pre-reqs to do the build. They want something that comes packaged inside a nice installer that just works, and in many cases couldn't care less if they could get it for free if "free" means having to go through a whole pile of complex mumbo-jumbo they don't care about.

      That's the situation my project, the jSyncManager is in. To build everything, you need the Java2 SDK v1.3 or better, Apache Ant, the Java Communications API, the Java USB API, the jUSB API, jDOM, Java Help, Java Mail, and Java Activation. To run the jSyncManager, you need many of the same APIs installed (although we've coded things to make some of these packages optional -- if you don't have Java Help installed, for example, the Help option is simply greyed out). You can download the three JARs for the jSyncManager, and put them into the right directories and create the necessary desktop icons yourself if you want -- but many of our potential users get confused at "Java" -- nevermind all the rest.

      We do have some bundles with all the right cross-platform APIs present and accounted for, and are hoping to put together some platform-specific bundles with nice installers and the platform-specific libraries (like javax.comm and javax.usb) -- but it's a lot of work. We have lots of users (and potential users) who would be happy to pay a small fee to have us put everything together in an easy-to-install package so they don't need to know the underlying magic incantations, and they don't have to go around to half a dozen (or more) different websites to download and set-up pre-reqs.

      Sure, advanced users will simply download the parts and put things together themselves, paying nothing -- that's what I expect them to do. But there are people out there willing to pay for convienence as well. And why shouldn't I make a bit of money to give them what they want/need?

      Brad BARCLAY
      Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
      The jSyncManager Project.

    9. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Okay, to take this a little further...

      I go to Company A, buy the binary and they give me the source code under GPL. Unbeknownst to Company A, my real intent is to recompile the code, and then sell the SAME product as A, but now undercut them. I sell the binaries and distribute the source code under the GPL, just like A.

      From what I understand of the GPL, there is no way A can prohibit me from doing this - they are not allowed to add any more restrictive terms to the license. How does A protect themselves from me?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    10. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      Sure, sell it and undercut the original vendor...

      If *you* can do a better job supporting the product, go right ahead. Just remember, you are going against the expert.

      If no support is needed, or customization, its probably horizontal. Sure, GPL, because that software should be "in the commons". If its vertical, it needs support/customization.

      Ratboy

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    11. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      Ok, but what is to stop someone from seeing that you are charging $100 for software X and then DLing your source, compiling it and selling it themselves for $50? Then the next guy for $10?

      I think the fact that there are precious few people actually making more than "pizza money" on GPLed projects (Where a piece of proprietary hardware was not also required) pretty much makes the case that though it may be technically possible, practically, it is nearly impossible to do.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    12. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by Yaztromo · · Score: 1
      Ok, but what is to stop someone from seeing that you are charging $100 for software X and then DLing your source, compiling it and selling it themselves for $50? Then the next guy for $10?

      Absolutely nothing. But would you want to buy the software from the people who know the code inside-out, or from someone who just slaps code on a CD?

      Regardless, I'd be happy if I could just make enough money for a pizza a week and to pay for my domain name and some of the hosting services I pay for out of my own pocket. As it is, I currently make nothing from the project. Breaking even would make me happy -- being able to afford new hardware devices for testing against once in a while would be a dream.

      Brad BARCLAY
      Lead Developer & Project Administrator,
      The jSyncManager Project.

    13. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of which would work at all. The open source community, to paraphrase an old canard about the internet, would see those techniques as damage and route around them. In short order, if the program was interesting to people, someone would use the source to provide a "fix" and bang, you'd be done for.

    14. Re:Forgive my ignorance, but how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, you see, is the problem with the GPL. As a programmer, pre-GPL you might have been thinking about being able to make a living from your work. Now you're satisfied with a pizza a week.

      As a fellow programmer, I think it is rather unjust that so much public pressure is being levied on people to license their software under terms that prevent them from earning decent money from their chosen field.

      If we were plumbers, or mechanics, or migrant farm workers, would Stallman so cavalierly say that he doesn't care whether we earn money from our labor? So why is it okay for him to say it about US?

      Is our work not useful? Is it not worth paying for? Are we not providing a useful function to society?

      Why starve us?

  8. mysql by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

    Mysql under certain circumsances.

  9. GNU Emacs by gorre · · Score: 3, Informative

    The earliest example of selling free software is probably RMS selling tapes of GNU Emacs for $150 a tape. He says he sold 8-10 tapes a month which generated enough cash for him to live off.

    --
    "Madness is something rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule." -- Nietzsche
    1. Re:GNU Emacs by rasz · · Score: 1

      thers one BUT, that Emacs he sold .. it wasnt exactly a GNU one, but someones else property. He simply stole that code. RMS is a very BAD mofo.

      --
      Go grab those torrents.
  10. Every time! by ptaff · · Score: 1
    Did you ever work on such a project as a programmer yourself?
    At my workplace, typical work is customizing already free-as-both-beer-and-speech existing programs (skins, terminology, add a function here and there). So, take GPL, give GPL.
    If so, how did the development differ from a free(dom)/free(beer) Open Source application?
    Somebody gets paid!

    Feel ready to own one or many Tux Stickers?
  11. JClass by UberChuckie · · Score: 1

    JClass from Quest Software (formerly Sitraka) is a package of Java classes to create charts. You had the option to pay extra to get the source code.

    This was a couple of years ago. I'm not sure if they will have the same licensing terms.

  12. A few examples by samrolken · · Score: 1
    Many people think that the GPL implies free (beer) software. It doesn't. Software can completely be sold under the GPL, and this is something people aren't aware enough of. Here are some examples I know of:

    Lsongs (and other Linspire things)

    Dansguardian - This is a particularly wacky one. If one downloads the source code, isn't he then able to use it however he wants? Or distribute it?

    CMSimple

    An interesting consequence of the GPL is that even though software is sold under the GPL, it may then be redistributed (in binary and source) by anyone. A discussion and demonstration of this can be found here.

    --
    samrolken
  13. I'm thinking of doing just this... by Yaztromo · · Score: 1

    I'm considering doing just this with my jSyncManager Project, which is licensed under the GPL/LGPL (the API is LGPL'ed, the applications built on top of it are GPL'ed).

    While I already provide the source for free online, along with binaries, it's a Java application, and it requires several pre-requisites which are platform-specific (like the Java Communications API, and/or the Java USB API). Users can go out and get all of the parts that are specific to their platform, but many of them find this too much of a hassle.

    So I'm thinking of putting together some bundles with some platform-specific plug-ins for different platforms and charging a small fee for them (as I put a lot of effort and money into this project, and wouldn't mind making something back from it all), wrapped in platform-specific installers to make things really easy for end-users. Power users would still have the option of putting everything together themselves -- compiled binaries for the parts would still be made available for download -- but for those users who need a more traditional installable program that just works, I'd like to make the option available for them at a reasonable price, without changing the licenses at all.

    Brad BARCLAY
    Lead Developer & Project Adminsitrator,
    The jSyncManager Project.

  14. Of course not. by leonbrooks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You wouldn't be able to squeeze past the Wikipedia to use the facility, and finding a nail that big would be interesting. Finding a piece of the shithouse structure that would take a nail that big would be even more interesting.

    Besides which, it's dynamic. Pretty soon you wouldn't be able to find the shithouse under all of the updates.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  15. we sell our source code... by josepha48 · · Score: 1

    .. so does that count? Its not GPL, but if anyone wants to buy it and link against it / compile it they can. They just cant sell it.

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?

  16. REDUCE computer algebra system by xerofud · · Score: 1

    is an example. They just released a new version. AXIOM is also worth checking out. It is free as in freedom and free as in free beer.

  17. Sure, but... by Tom7 · · Score: 1

    Many linux distros sell their product.

    But any customer can copy GPL software that he purchases, which removes the artificial monopoly that lets most software be profitable.

    A better way to build a business around free software is to charge for the thing that's actually hard to do, which is making and supporting the software. Neither of those can be duplicated for free, like software can.

    1. Re:Sure, but... by andyfaeglasgow · · Score: 1

      An even better way would be to make rubbish software that requires loads of support cause it keeps crashing...AND charging people for it.

      Hold on a minute...no wonder Microsoft are so successful ;-)

    2. Re:Sure, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is in fact the exact opposite of how MS works. It is in fact the exact way that Oracle works though, and virtually every old school big-iron software/hardware company used to work.

      Frankly I was glad to see those days gone, I need "support" from Microsoft maybe once every two years. Buying software that does not require paying for support just to install it, let alone use it (RH, Oracle (Who will suggest sending out a rep to even get it running!), et. al.) saves huge money in the long run.

  18. Dansguardian is a violation by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The author of Dansguardian states first that his software is not free for commercial purposes, but then says it is licensed under the GPL. This is a contradiction.

    The GPL does not explicitly stipulate commercial or non-commercial use. Its only requirement is that source is distributed with binaries, and that all subsequent derivative works are also licensed under the GPL. If this guy wants to make his software non-free for commercial use, he should write his own license.

  19. rogue wave by rmull · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rogue Wave Software always used to ship source. I assume they still do.

    --
    See you, space cowboy...
  20. OpenSS7 by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 1

    A fee gives you access to the CVS repository for 1 year. The software is GPL'ed (not LGPL), and forkable under those rules. To produce a closed source application requires additional $$. Since their target market probably prefers other OSs than Linux, this is where they would get a bunch of $$ from.

    Since they require $$ before letting people see the code, it does limit the number of developers on the project. However, they seem to be making money at it. :)

    http://www.openss7.com/
    http://www.openss7.org/

    Jason Pollock

    1. Re:OpenSS7 by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1

      Sort of reminds me of this guy. Same game, different player.

      --
      "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  21. Bad Assumptions by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're making erroneous assumptions, but don't feel bad, because GNU makes the same ones. The first bad assumption is that the reality follows theory. The second is that you're selling software.

    The theory is that you can put a price tag on Free Software. The reality is that you're going to find precious few customers for it. Free Software is like a gate without a fence. You can charge all you want to use the gate, but without a fence you won't find too many people paying you for that privilege. You're going to sell to the first customer, and maybe to the second, but by the time you get to the fifth or sixth you'll find your earlier customers have become your competitors and driven down the market price to zero dollars.

    There are no publicly available Free Software packages with a market price greater than zero. Take the GCC toolkit for example. GNU theoretically "sells" it for $45, but in reality everyone gets it for free. I know that I have several copies laying around, and I didn't pay for a one of them.

    Which leads to the second bad assumption. When you find people "buying" Free Software, they aren't really buying the software. When you buy a boxed set of SuSE or Redhat you are not buying the software, you are buying the box, manuals, service and support, and the convenience of not having to download and burn your own CDs and DVDs. The software itself is free (as in french fries). Or take the "Deluxe GNU Distribution" which GNU sells for $5000. Do you really think people are buying GNU software for that kind of money? Of course not! They're buying a combination of custom prebuilt binaries and the warm fuzzy feeling a generous charitable donation gives.

    Some people will be fooled, however. Some people will buy SuSE and Redhat not knowing that they can get it for no cost. What they're buying in this instance is an education. One notable commercial Open Source figure once admitted to me that he was in the business of taxing ignorance.

    Please stop spreading this myth that you can sell the software. You can't. You can certainly sell a convenience, a support contract, or even warm fuzzies, but you cannot sell practically sell the software. The realities of economics won't let you.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    1. Re:Bad Assumptions by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You're making erroneous assumptions, but don't feel bad, because GNU makes the same ones. The first bad assumption is that the reality follows theory. The second is that you're selling software.


      You are flatly wrong. Please read what the FSF actually says on the topic before you comment on what they think again.

      Here are some things that the FSF actually says on the topic (emphasis in italics is mine):

      Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.


      With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software.


      You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.


      I don't think that the FSF suffers under any illusions about being able to sell Free Software in the way that commercial software is sold.

      However, when people think of ``selling software'', they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary rather than free.

      So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term ``selling software'' and choose some other wording instead. For example, you could say ``distributing free software for a fee''--that is unambiguous.


      They seem to make some of the the very same points you are trying to make. So please, chill out, and don't speak for other people until you are sure what their position is.

      -Peter

      PS: GNU is a system, the FSF is a group. GNU doesn't make assumptions, the FSF does.
    2. Re:Bad Assumptions by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      I realize that's what GNU says. But they also say otherwise. Simply refer to Free Software, especially Free Software from GNU, as "noncommercial", and you will find representatives from GNU telling you otherwise. If you're a reporter and asserted this publicly, be prepared to receive an email from RMS himself correcting you.

      GNU is correct that you can create a commercial endeavor using Free Software, but you cannot in practice make the software itself commercial.

      p.s. I'm using the word "GNU" to refer to The GNU Project rather than The GNU System. Projects contain people as well as software. Think of my use as shorthand for "GNU developers".

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    3. Re:Bad Assumptions by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      I don't think they correct the use of noncommercial for non-proprietary because they think that Free Software can be sold the way propritary software is, in direct contridiction of what they say. I think that they make this correction because they belive that this misuse of the word noncommercial creates the impression that it is not suitable for commerical use, or not licensed for commerical use.

      -Peter

  22. nononono by sofar · · Score: 1


    a program written in the language of a compiler isn't a derivative work of that compiler just as much as game-data is derivative to the game-engine. It's a whole new level, a personal interpretation of a world that can take shape. Nothing derived.

    The Kylix trick is inherently flawed and probably contradicts the GPL IMHO.

    1. Re:nononono by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Kylix trick is inherently flawed and probably contradicts the GPL IMHO.

      No, there's nothing wrong with it. You can't really build a Kylix app without using Borland libraries, so your app will include Borland code, making your code a derived work of theirs. If you don't have a license to distribute their code you can't distribute your app. Since they release their libraries under the GPL, you can release your app under the GPL, if you like. If you want to release under some other license, you have to pay Borland for a different license for their stuff.

      Other software packages like Qt for X11, Sleepycat's dbm implementation, etc., work the same way. It's a pretty nice model for development tools, although it wouldn't work for most other kinds of software.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  23. So let me get this straight by AnwerB · · Score: 1

    I can take free GPL code, make a change and then resell it for $500,000?

    Isn't this just another way of keeping the source closed?

    1. Re:So let me get this straight by mysoulisfarting · · Score: 0

      No, because thats just as good as not releasing it to the public. No one will ever get to use your modified version.

    2. Re:So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly you can, as long as you offer the source code to anyone asking for it for a reasonable price like, say $50, under the GNU GPL.

    3. Re:So let me get this straight by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I can take free GPL code, make a change and then resell it for $500,000?

      Yes. But you're required to include the source code, and your customer may then redistribute it at whatever price they see fit. You'll only get that $500,000 once, and that only if your one change is good enough to justify your price.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:So let me get this straight by AnwerB · · Score: 1

      Actually, what I was getting at is that the binary is part of my system (for example, an mp3 player).

      Then, when the competition wants to get access to my mp3 code (which started out as GPL), then I tell them that I would be happy to give them access to it for $9999999999999999999999999.99

      Effectively, I've closed open-source allowing me to make improvements that don't get back into the community.

    5. Re:So let me get this straight by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      No... you can't do that. You've already distributed your modified code when you sold the mp3 player; you have to provide the source to all the people to whom you distribute the modified code, i.e. everyone who's bought that mp3 player.

      You can charge what you like for that mp3 player, though. And you don't have to make the code available to the world at large - just to the people who've bought the mp3 player. Of course, then they can distribute the code freely to the world if they like.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.