A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

[Marshall Van Alstyne <marshall AT MIT.EDU>]

At 02:30 AM 8/20/2004, Rob Myers wrote:
> > Note that one goal is to create not just a hybrid, a proliferation, or 
> > dual license but a "meta" license -- a clean format with parameters like 
> > those of a software subroutine.  With one set of parameters you might get 
> > BSD, with another you might get GPL, etc.
>
> This sounds like the CC license approach. CC already describe the GPL, so 
> possibly adding BSD and LGPL to the CC descriptions would be a better 
> approach that reproducing them.

I'd fully support this.


> > One problem with a "dual" license is the occasional difficulty of 
> > combining contributions made by either side -- open versus 
> > proprietary.  Contributors to the open version don't necessarily want 
> > their efforts sold, while contributors to the proprietary version want to 
> > earn a living.  This versioning problem represents a kind of forking that 
> > we think can be avoided by a better license.
>
> IIRC this isn't how dual projects work. With MySQL, QT, Berkely DB, the 
> codebase is written and owned by a single vendor and dual licensed on the 
> basis of this. People buy a proprietary license so they don't *have* to 
> contribute. Anyone contributing to the Open Version knows full well their 
> work will be sold, so is unlikely to contribute more than bug patches.

Your second point is actually where I think much of the meat is.  Suppose 
we could write a license so that a person contributing to the Open Version 
could be confident that a 3rd party wasn't selling the value that he or she 
created?  Everyone could use it but no one is charging for it.  Wouldn't he 
or she be more likely to contribute?

If it's conceivable, then can we create a mechanism that makes this 
achievable?

> > Another take on solving this problem might be a variant on the dual 
> > licensing approach.  This would be a switch from side-by-side to 
> > before-and-after.  A contribution could start life as proprietary code, 
> > becoming open after a short delay.  Contributions made under the open 
> > model would always be open.
>
> This would simply combine the worst features of both models. No sales 
> would be made during the proprietary period, no contributions would be 
> received during it either. This would result in an Open Source, 
> non-commercial model but with built-in time inefficiency, reducing Open 
> Source's efficiency in creating value.

Let me refocus this.  Backing up to the general question of "hybridization" 
we can consider biological metaphors for the process of recombining 
ideas.  At one extreme, hybrids can be sterile as in the case of mules and 
ligers (lion/tiger crosses).  This seems to be the case emphasized by this 
comment.  At the other extreme, we get hybrid vigor as in the case of high 
yield hybrid corn and pest resistant hybrid cotton.  This is where I'd like 
to go.

If the position is that there are no benefits to a proprietary model under 
any circumstances ever, then I'd agree there wouldn't be much benefit to 
hybridization.  But such a claim seems implausible, whether applied to 
proprietary or open mechanisms.

At this early stage, I'd like to move away from endorsing or critiquing any 
particular mechanism.  It doesn't really matter whether a hybridization is 
achieved by dual licensing, side-by-side, or before-and-after.  The more 
interesting question is what is the best conceivable mechanism?  Then let's 
discuss how we get there.

I'd like to get creative ideas on the table.  There will be plenty of 
opportunity to shoot them down later.


> > One goal is finding an answer to the continuing question "How do you 
> > build a business around open source?"
>
> Since this is Creative Commons, don't you mean Open Content? There are 
> many existent examples of business and Open Source. Most Internet business 
> is based on Open Source. Apple have based their current operating system 
> on Open Source. Computer Associates have recognised that their only hope 
> to continue with some of their products is to Open Source them.

Yes, I stand corrected on "Open Content".  In fact, I'd expand it to a very 
encompassing definition roughly anything representable as information, 
including facts and data on the one hand and processes like code and gene 
sequences on the other.


> >  I've spoken with several large corporations that remain wary of current 
> > licenses.
>
> IMHO this is an educational problem, not a license problem.

Here I'm skeptical.  Many of these folks are very bright and have reached 
their opinions after seeking a great deal of input.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that it *is* an education 
problem.  Then, wouldn't the best response be to provide the best logic for 
why a claim of corporate benefit is true?

As I'm sure we'd agree, managing Open Content to balance diverse goals is 
an extremely complex problem.  This also represents a big opportunity for 
Creative Commons.  Digesting this complexity in ways that account for 
diverse opinions, and making the results available in standard licenses is 
what a lot of people, myself included, would love to have.


> > A second goal is to put as much software under the open source model as 
> > possible, where users can gain free access to it.
>
> I hope you mean free-as-in-freedom, not free-as-in-beer. The list 
> description confuses free with non-commercial. Open Source is not a loss 
> leader.

Yes, I do.  I've been well-informed by RMS on this point.

> > A third goal is to enumerate licensing tradeoffs then to put them into a 
> > simulation model of a socially optimal license.  The code for this would 
> > of course be fully open.  A simulation would move a debate over licensing 
> > tradeoffs into a kind of recursive open science where the design of 
> > systems for developing code becomes an open social construct in code.
>
> This would be very interesting. I would say that of the points raised in 
> the slides, only one is not answered optimally by the GPL.

Thanks; this is really where I want to go.  One of the aspects I want to 
contribute is such a model.  I'd like to get everyone's assumptions and 
ideas on the table then put them into a framework where we can juxtapose 
ideas against one another to see where they lead.  Let software help us 
cope with the complexity.

We have a modest amount of NSF funding to do this and it is one of the main 
reasons for soliciting input through this group.  And, since the code 
itself will be fully open, no one need take my (or anyone else's) 
assumptions as given.

MVA