| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Movable Type released under the GPLMovable Type released under the GPLPosted Dec 14, 2007 0:55 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698)In reply to: Movable Type released under the GPL by and Parent article: Movable Type released under the GPL I wouldn't write off Solaris yet. IMNSHO, 4Front OSS failed as a commercial product not because the code was GPL'd, but because their business model was to sell more advanced versions as proprietary code. That gave people more incentive to use ALSA.
(Log in to post comments)
Movable Type released under the GPL Posted Dec 20, 2007 19:01 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] Which arguably spoiled things for everybody. :(
Movable Type released under the GPL Posted Dec 20, 2007 19:29 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] I don't think it "spoiled things" for anyone, except perhaps the owners of OSS. End users got ALSA, which is substantially better than OSS.There are certainly opportunities to sell GPL'd code. Red Hat is an obvious example. But it's also possible to sell commercial non-GPL licenses to GPL code, if you're the owner of the code. I've done that myself. What I don't think tends to work very well is the bait-and-switch "You can use this version under the GPL, or pay us for a better version" model. If that's tried for anything that's even vaguely popular, it just inspires people to fork the code and add the features themselves. While many people seem not to like the idea of forking development, that's actually one of the great advantages of free software. You're not locked in to getting updates from a single source.
Movable Type released under the GPL Posted Dec 21, 2007 19:51 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > End users got ALSA, which is substantially better than OSS. That's what I was referring to; I must respectfully disagree about the relative merits of the two systems.
|
|
||||||||||||