Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Monty Suggests a Business-Friendly License That Trends Open

Posted by timothy on from the give-yourself-a-head-start dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Want to gain some of the benefits of open source software development but not sure how to finance it? According to Monty Widenius, creator of MySQL and MariaDB, one solution could be the 'business source' license. While 'open source friendly' rather than open source, Monty blogged, it is intended to offer a viable alternative for companies that want to 'do development and compete with closed source companies on similar economic terms.' Business source starts out with similar benefits as an OSD-compliant license: the source code is visible and can be used freely by all but a small segment that has to pay (the developing company chooses the segment). Then, after a few years, the license automatically changes to an open source license. Monty recently explained the details of business source, and gave a sample license. (Oh, and not to worry, he notes – MariaDB is and will remain GPL.)"

43 comments

  1. Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for another Slashdot license war.
    We just haven't had enough of those lately.

  2. Is Monty off his meds this morning? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0

    >> Then, after a few years, the license automatically changes to an open source license.

    The "automatically changes" sounds more like the BS "sunset" clauses that go into evil but "temporary" legislation that increases taxes, increases surveillance, drops environmental protections and the like. Or copyrights and patents that can be deferred just about forever.

    1. Re:Is Monty off his meds this morning? by harvestsun · · Score: 2

      If you had read the article you would have noticed: "I truly belive that Open Source is a better way to develop software." But Open Source is not always practical for a business. He's proposing this as a more open alternative to Open Core, not as a more closed alternative to Open Source. At least that's my impression.

      And...
      >copyrights and patents that can be deferred just about forever.
      No idea where you're taking that from. It's a fixed time period stamped on the file, it's not forever.

    2. Re:Is Monty off his meds this morning? by robmv · · Score: 2

      I think this is the licensing model Android uses without calling it that way. Google give access to the code only to to their partners, they develop features in their private repository, then after the first device ship, the code is properly pushed to the public repository. Everyone has access to the code at that date, but non Google partners are at a market disadvantage, they will be late (theoretically because some OHA members are slow to release new releases than non members)

    3. Re:Is Monty off his meds this morning? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> RTFA

      Dude, on Slashdot? Really?

      >>>> copyrights and patents that can be deferred just about forever.
      >> No idea where you're taking that from

      Couple of places. There's a reason companies employ lawyers, after all.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
      http://io9.com/5865283/three-sleazy-moves-pharmaceutical-companies-use-to-extend-drug-patents

    4. Re:Is Monty off his meds this morning? by harvestsun · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't realize people disliked knowledge and critical thinking on Slashdot. My mistake.
      And my POINT is that there is no reason to believe, that I can see, that the Business Source license can be extended arbitrarily. If I download the code, see when the license will expire, and wait for that period, what legal basis would the business have for preventing me from using that code? If you can think of one I would like to hear it. But as far as I know you can't retroactively apply a software license.

    5. Re:Is Monty off his meds this morning? by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whippersnapper. Ghostscript was the original program to do that. The current version was closed source but the old versions were GPL.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:Is Monty off his meds this morning? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Yes. Because Choice is EVIL!
      Down with having choices. Just get JonBoy to tell us what should and should not be.
      If anyone wants something different fuck them.

      The raging stupidity of people still seems to be able to surprise me at times.
      I must do better at not over estimating humanity.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    7. Re: Is Monty off his meds this morning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's okay. You must be new here.

    8. Re:Is Monty off his meds this morning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increasing the amount of choices is not automagically good. More good choices is good. Increasing the ratio of bad choices to good choices is bad since it increases the odds of making a bad choice.

      Some of us here are debating whether this is a good choice or not.

      While you're busily trying not to overestimate humanity don't overestimate yourself. You don't seem that smart to me. It's true, lots of people are stupider than you. If you're smart and good you'd guide and help the sheep. If you're smart and evil you'd exploit them.

    9. Re:Is Monty off his meds this morning? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      There is no situation in which having the ability to use this license is a bad thing.
      In some cases it may not be the license you want to use or the best one to use, but having the choice to use the license when it benefits you is not a bad thing.
      Also since this licenses is designed to be useful to some businesses there are no "Sheep" out there to exploit.

      Good try but next time to attempt to argue a point use some facts that fit the case you are arguing.

      Good choice on posting AC though. Would not want to let stupid statements like that to ever be tied to you.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  3. dual license, GPLv3 and commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    the FSF will shit their pants, but dual license GPLv3 and commericial for paying vendors. Or custom tailor a license for whoever pays you enough, while making it freely available as GPLv3.

    Ubuntu is doing this, You will draw some ire from the Free software community as it violates the spirit of Free software.

    1. Re:dual license, GPLv3 and commercial by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Why would the shit themselves? Qt was dual licensed under GPLv3 and commercial for years before the LGPL option was added and the FSF didn't make a sound.

    2. Re:dual license, GPLv3 and commercial by optikos · · Score: 1

      I agree: AdaCore dual licenses GNAT Pro, while getting along with FSF rather intimately as part of GPL-licensed GCC SVN repository.

    3. Re:dual license, GPLv3 and commercial by greg1104 · · Score: 2

      The only reason GNOME exists is exactly because the FSF objected to the Qt license. See Stallman on Qt for some history there.

    4. Re:dual license, GPLv3 and commercial by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      The FSF has a leaky sphincter (think goatse) so they shit themselves on a daily basis. It has nothing to do with this particular issue, though.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:dual license, GPLv3 and commercial by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know the history. How is that at all relevant to the time period from 2005-2009 which I am referring to where it was both GPLv3 and commercial.

    6. Re:dual license, GPLv3 and commercial by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Saying that the FSF wasn't complaining suggests they were happy with the license. Looking over the longer timeline, I see it more as that they just stopped complaining so much in public, probably because they were worn out by then. They had already been bitching for a long time by 2005, they had gotten significant license concessions, and the end goal they really wanted (code under one free license) was very clear by then.

  4. Monty has no moral authority here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MySQL used GPL (and some FUD) as a tool to make people pay for the closed source version. Want to contribute to MySQL? You had to sign over your copyrights to MySQL AB.

    After he cashed out and MySQL became property of Oracle, he demanded that the MySQL copyrights be given back to him ... so he could repeat the trick.

    That asshole is not a friend to Free Software or Open Source Software. He is might wide anus.

    1. Re:Monty has no moral authority here by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      This is not just history, it's ongoing. MariaDB requires copyright assignment for contributing code today. They claim "This is needed so that Monty Program Ab can give your code forwards to other projects (like MySQL)." But that's slight of hand to distract from the real issue here. If MySQL won't accept straight GPL code, that's their problem to fix, not mine to work around as a contributor. When I support a new fork of something I don't worry about pandering to the needs of the other forks anymore. That is the whole point of forking code--you shouldn't even go there unless you have given up on working within the constraints of the original project.

      Copyright assignment isn't always associated with bad behavior; the FSF requires it too. But when you're assigning your copyright to someone who has taken advantage of dual-licensing to their personal benefit before, it's really hard to see it as anything other than self-serving the next time they try.

  5. Monty Wideanus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monty Wideanus and Julian Assange need to team up as the Attention Whoring Duo.

    Oh, and not to worry, he notes – MariaDB is and will remain GPL.

    No shit? You mean someone who doesn't hold copyright to the code cannot relicense it? Color me shocked!

  6. Real license FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Monty doesn't get it. This type of argument is why I license most of my code under the BSDL. I don't care if people use my code. He made a fatal mistake of selling out once and now he's mad about it. It's really that simple...

    He wants to:
    1. Find a way to make money on FOSS using new scheme
    2. Come up with stupid new license we don't need ...
    7. Profit

    Redhat has made a fortune not doing it the Monty way. Why not try their approach?

    1. Re:Real license FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't put Red Hat on a pedestal; Monty has been quite successful doing much the same thing as they have, only he's more transparent.

      I have used Red Hat products and paid quite a bit for them (long before they required it, in fact) but they seem to be strongly steered by internal, sometimes ephemeral quirks that are opaque to customers. For example, if the guy assigned to track your FOSS project decides he strongly dislikes you at a personal level, expect that your project will be poorly supported. If the guy doesn't hate you, but he's been assigned more projects than he's capable of handling, expect your project to be poorly supported. Since they farmed out development to Fedora this problem has gotten amplified - now there's two levels of inability to closely co-ordinate people management and technical management, although this manifests in two different ways.

      Red Hat's a good company. Not a great company, though. And code written by Monty and given to Red Hat for free has been a huge part of Red Hat's success, which I think they would be the first to admit.

  7. We have them already... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 0

    It's the GPL, LGPL, and BSD licences pick the appropriate one for your business model

    See all the business software written under them that are making money ...

    If your business model is not compatible with the above then what you want is not Open Source ...

    --
    Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  8. Capitalist Apologist by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Funny

    'do development and compete with closed source companies on similar economic terms.'

    Or, you know, we just keep doing what we're doing now, which is providing high quality software that's well documented, easily maintained, available to the public for free, and hated by capitalists so much they've sent the IRS after every organization that supports it searching for it's hidden pirate treasure to turn over to the greedy.

    Look, let me put it in terms you can understand: If your company is losing market share to a bunch of people who do this for shits and giggles in their spare time, maybe you should be polishing up your resume instead of bemoaning the situation. I mean, that's the free market at work, right? Why are you trying to interfere with the free market Monty?

    Stop trying to negotiate with capitalists. They don't undertstand... they're like dinosaurs: They can't see it unless it has a dollar sign on it.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Capitalist Apologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, we just keep doing what we're doing now, which is providing high quality software that's well documented, easily maintained, available to the public for free

      +1 funny.

      hated by capitalists so much

      Clearly. Everyone knows that the US government and companies like IBM, Red Hat, Oracle, Cisco, Nokia, Intel, AMD, etc. are all run as communist communes.

    2. Re:Capitalist Apologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, that's the free market at work, right?

      No, this is the free market at work.
      Also: XKCD sucks ass. Don't waste your time reading it.

    3. Re:Capitalist Apologist by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Look, let me put it in terms you can understand: If your company is losing market share to a bunch of people who do this for shits and giggles in their spare time, maybe you should be polishing up your resume instead of bemoaning the situation. I mean, that's the free market at work, right?

      Yes, actually. Unfortunately, though, not everyone who runs a business believes in competing in a free market. Many of them, especially executives at large corporations, believe in exploiting government to given themselves an artificial advantage over their competition. Copyright is related to this, because it's a state-granted entitlement, so it wouldn't even exist in a free market.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    4. Re:Capitalist Apologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trying to negotiate with capitalists. They don't understand... they're like dinosaurs: They can't see it unless it has a dollar sign on it.

      Reminds me of an old Sufi saying: "When a thief meets a wise man, he sees only his pockets."

      (Tip of the hat to Idries Shah.)

      Dare I say, 'Reminds me of Paul Vixie'?

  9. Free vs Less Free by mlwmohawk · · Score: 0

    In computer science, there is a saying, there are three states for an option, 0, 1, or infinite. This basically means, no option, the option for one, or the option for some number greater than one of which any limit will be artificial in nature and short lived because it will not enough for some customer.

    Freedom is like this. You have either no freedom, a very clearly stated freedom, or an on going battle for freedoms. GPL is option (1). This proposed license is, by definition, unfair, poorly thought out, and lastly, doomed to fail.

    1. Re:Free vs Less Free by tepples · · Score: 1

      In computer science, there is a saying, there are three states for an option, 0, 1, or infinite.

      In the case of copyright licensing, what does "one" represent?

      the option for some number greater than one of which any limit will be artificial in nature

      The 95-year copyright term is already an artificial interval on a time continuum.

    2. Re:Free vs Less Free by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Wow, so many people from my Friends list. Cool.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Free vs Less Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't make the Top 40. I suggest you try harder.

  10. It's not new: Founders Copyright by tepples · · Score: 1

    If your business model is not compatible with the above then what you want is not Open Source ...

    The article describes a license that is non-free immediately but becomes a free software license three years after first publication of a work. I see it as not unlike the Founders Copyright arrangement.

  11. Long story, short... by Rumtis · · Score: 1

    So basically is a "dual license" license with an automatic "devolve entirely to [X open source licence] after [Y] years" clause.

    Makes sense. No one will use it, but it makes sense.

    1. Re:Long story, short... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      It will make sense, if the software it licenses is any good. No one would care about GPL or BSD if there weren't already many good programs licensed by them. I mean, how many people really use the PHP license outside of PHP?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  12. They exist by buttfuckinpimpnugget · · Score: 0

    And are commonly called BSD, ISC or MIT. This is fucking stupid.

  13. Private Patent System??? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Or maybe private copyright is more accurate.

    I know! Let's give the inventors the right to profit for a limited time, then turn it over to the public domain! Yeah, that's the ticket!

    Astounding. Why didn't I think of that???

  14. Hmmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the guy who has been taking OSS stuff and re-licensing it as closed so he can sell it only to fork it and try to do it again?

    I'm sorry, Monty, but your track record of selling the product to closed shops doesn't make you someone we trust on this issue. Any why would a developer want to build something which was there to benefit companies first and everyone else later?

    I'm pretty sure that, for me, we need to ponder Monty's personal profit motive here. I wouldn't contribute to filling his pockets, and I certainly wouldn't assign him the ownership of my code.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  15. Compromise-surrender by installment plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compromise is surrender on the installment plan.

  16. Already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has already been done in Tahoe-LAFS

    It's called TGPPL

    https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs/blob/master/COPYING.TGPPL.rst