Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-bizcom - Re: [Cc-bizcom] comments from Zack

cc-bizcom AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: cc-bizcom AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-bizcom] comments from Zack
  • Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:30:29 +0100

On Monday, September 13, 2004, at 03:22PM, Marshall Van Alstyne
<marshall AT MIT.EDU> quoted:

>We summarize our philosophy as "Quid Pro Quo" to mean that if you're free,
>we're free, and if you're closed source, we have a commercial license.
>
>As has been noted on your discussion boards, there are challenges with the
>dual license approach. I wonder if it would be possible to have a single
>license that meets the needs of a commercially sustained open source
>development effort, like MySQL. There are other companies that also use the
>dual license approach, like Sleepycat, Trolltech, OSAF etc.

Possibly a "polymorphic license", a license with terms that apply depending
on how you are using the licensed material. So, to paraphrase MySQL; if
you're free it's free, if you're commercial it's commercial? (Clauses 1-3
apply if you are using this product commercially as defined in paragraph 7,
clauses 4-5 apply if you are using this product as part of a Free Software
project as defined in paragraph 6).

But then this doesn't allow free contribution of code to the project, so it
reduces the effectiveness of Open Source by roadblocking the growth of value.
Unless there's a micropayment scheme attached somehow. ;-) The problem is
companies trying to "own" Free codebases when the whole point, and the driver
of value, is that you can't.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is how Open Source made MySQL
commercially viable. I certainly wouldn't have started selling a new database
at the moment when Oracle and Microsoft were consolidating their stranglehold
on the market in the late-1990s. Without Open Source, MySQL would not have
got the mindshare, exposure and community of users required to make it
commercially successful. It may be that the GPL is better for starting
projects than for maintaining them, or that it is better for companies whose
primary (or only) product isn't software, but it may be that mature software
isn't the best primary (or only) product for companies. See how much trouble
Microsoft are having increasing their revenue with ageing codebases and a
market starting to wise up to forced upgrade cycles.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page