Software informational articles

Open find concepts: dual licensing explained - software


We were freshly faced with a decision: both to let a course that took us one year to code die, basically since we do not have adequate time to be adamant it, or make it open source.

Open cause looked like a good idea for while, but there was one problem. We hunted to keep the software under our check and to be able to make money promotion it later. And let us just be direct and admit it: we sought monopoly over our software and why not? It took us one year to write the software, and its documentation. Yeah we consider in 'Free Software', but who works for free. Free software can never be booming in the long run, if there is no way to make money.

Dual Licensing and GPL:

Then we said to each other: 'Hey, RedHat and MySQL are open source. Still they make lot of money. How?" The counter lies in the approach known as 'Dual Licensing'. It is very simple. The Open Find band first has to copyright the cause code, and then make it accessible to public. Now, since the band owns the cause code copyright, it can circulate it under two assorted licenses: one open font and the other commercial. The open find authority in such case will about all the time be GNU GPL (General Communal License), which allows any person to adapt the cause code, reorder it and incorporate it into other projects. However, there is one catch (a big, and bothersome catch). The restriction is that any endeavor that uses GPL'd code must also be at large under the GPL authority (GPL, we believe, works like a virus. It keeps on spreading). Which easily means (regarless of what open basis ativists tell you), you cannot sell the GPL'd code or any development that incorporates it for profit. For that purpose, you will have to offer a business-related license.

Some well known companies that use Dual Licensing are: RedHat Inc, MySQL, AB. , Sleepycat among many others. These companies one hand attracts ancestors and developers who want to move the Open Font movement, and on the other, they want to make some considerable money with dual licensing.

Let us look at an example: a guy was creating a advertisement file concentration that was anticipated to bring him some cash. He used MySQL folder at the backend, idea it was free. He later found out that he desecrated the GPL abandon that MySQL uses. Any person is classified from distributing an claim that uses GPL in customized or original form if the whole assignment is accredited under GPL. So that guy was left with no choice, but to buy advertisement licenses (based on per copy) from MySQL, AB.

Is Dual Licensing Evil?

Yes. But there is naught wrong with it. If no artifact revenues are advent in, the assignment will finally die or will at all times be in a very bad shape (a lot of open font evangelists might try to contradict us and balance open cause with religion, which it is not). In other words, if a guy is not creation money from a endeavor why in the hell would he keep behind it. An case in point of one such software is PuTTY (with confession to Simon Tatham). Even all the same it is immensely popular, it still grass a lot to be wished for. The User Boundary is meager, the credentials is of low average and there is no (customer) support. Curious for a very common software.

Now if PuTTY was on the rampage under dual license, it might have been a lot another than it is now. The PuTTY band would have expanded, hiring new citizens and bountiful client support. That did not come to pass and the consequence is that PuTTY is not used in large corporations who favor business-related software with client aid and a big shot to blame if no matter which goes wrong. For example, Vandyke SecureCRT, Whitehorn Acquire Airport or Outer space Telnet are some common business-related SSH clients.

So you mean Open Basis is bad? Why colonize go open cause then?

No. It is not. The amount one benefit of open font is that it can cut the advancement time by as much as 50%. The other argue why colonize go open basis is to make sure that endeavor will all the time stay alive with the help from education commune (many business-related software applications die in their first year). Some colonize participate in open basis advance just to make a name for them.

The bed line is that Dual Licensing is not as evil as many associates think it is. It is the only way to go if you want to make money from your open cause project. We would like to end this clause with a line from the infamous 'Open communication to hobbyists' in black and white by Bill Gates: "Nothing would entertain me more than to be able to hire ten programmers and cloudburst the hobby advertise with good software. "

DISCLAIMER: All in order given in this condition is provided on 'AS IS' basis. The author's do not fake any dependability for any cost and do not swear that the in a row given in this clause is accurate. This critique is not allied with any organization. This commentary can be scattered and redistributed as long as Author's names are not distorted and the fundamental text carcass intact.

Ali Mansoor (malimansoor@hotmail. com) has on paper numerous eminent advertisement applications. Umer Mansoor (umer. mansoor@gmail. com) spends most of his time indoctrination or assessment about money building schemes. He is inspired by his Dad, God, Microsoft, and more recently, Google. Visit his open cause development page at: http://www. pegsol. com/newdesign/development. htm

Note from the authors: No we are not nerds or geeks and we delimit FREE as in 'free beer', not as in 'free speech'. Cheers. .

Developed by:
home | site map © 2018