| |||||||||||||
Open Core != Dual LicensingOpen Core != Dual LicensingPosted Oct 18, 2010 19:09 UTC (Mon) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281)Parent article: Kuhn: Canonical, Ltd. Finally On Record: Seeking Open Core
The author mixes up 'open core' with 'dual licensing' (specifically dual licensing with FOSS and proprietary options).
'Open core' is having some FOSS product, and selling additions to it, that are not FOSS. Open core tends to be problematic since the motivation is to keep the open core limited, so you can sell additions to it. But the community can fix those limitations by writing FOSS code. So there is tension there.
'Dual licensing' is having a single codebase, and making it available under several options. One approach there is to offer a FOSS version, typically GPL, alongside a proprietary license. So you can use it under the GPL, or you can pay for a license and use it without opening up your own code.
Obviously there are some similarities between 'open core' and 'dual licensing'. But the main problem with 'open core', mentioned above (the tension between keeping the core limited, and the community's desire to improve it) does not exist with dual licensing.
I'm not saying dual licensing is great. It has downsides as well. But the author talks about these two very different things as if they were one.
It looks like Canonical is positive about dual licensing. I don't see much a problem with that personally. If they were going to do open core, I'd be very annoyed.
Note that dual licensing is also separate from requiring copyright assignment (which Canonical does). Copyright assignment can help with dual licensing, as you own the code, and can offer additional licenses of it. But, there are other ways. You can allow community members to submit code under a permissive license which is compatible with the copyleft one. That doesn't stop you from offering a proprietary license to the code you own.
(Log in to post comments)
Open Core and proprietary relicensing Posted Oct 18, 2010 21:52 UTC (Mon) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] I tend to use proprietary relicensing and “Open Core” somewhat interchangeably because they typically have the same outcome. “Open Core” is a buzzword that has no agreed upon meeting. I define what I mean by it elsewhere in my blog and that post was linked to from the blog post in question, too. I'm planning another post next week to discuss this question of whether there is a real difference between “Open Core” and proprietary relicensing. As for
Open Core and proprietary relicensing Posted Oct 19, 2010 0:19 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> I tend to use proprietary relicensing and Open Core somewhat interchangeably because they typically have the same outcome.
That's debatable. In any case, 'open core' and 'dual licensing' are very different in terms of what they actually are, regardless of their outcome.
Anyhow, ignoring the terms we use, Canonical appears to support giving the option to purchase a non-FOSS license for FOSS code. There are upsides and downsides here. Like RMS, I tend to not see a huge problem, it depends on the situation.
Were Canonical going to, instead, start selling proprietary code, I (and RMS) would strongly disapprove.
"A buzzword that has no agreed upon meaning" Posted Oct 19, 2010 12:18 UTC (Tue) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link] If a vague unknown new term "has no agreed upon meaning", why is it being used hereand for sensational ends? When a third-party undertakes such activities, the libre/open community quietly counter by pointing out this tactic is known as "FUD". Licensing discussions (which I believe most FSF/SFLC-involvees are intimately familiar with) are successful when they gentle affairs, undertaken calmly, with solid facts in-hand (such as copies of wording of the GPL text). If spreading FUD was apparently not acceptable when SCO did it, why is it suddenly acceptable for a figurehead of the Software Freedom Conservancy? Input tends to be greatly valued when it arrives without sensation and based upon hard foundations. Indeed, input also tends to be valued when it is either non-sensational or concrete in nature. By failing (IMHO) to provide either, I fear that this piece has probably missed its intended target.
"A buzzword that has no agreed upon meaning" Posted Oct 19, 2010 13:53 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] If a vague unknown new term "has no agreed upon meaning", why is it being used hereand for sensational ends? When a third-party undertakes such activities, the libre/open community quietly counter by pointing out this tactic is known as "FUD". Only if they run out of other arguments first. See also "ad hominem". In any case, the article raises some interesting points which do not appear to be adequately addressed by a response whose final paragraph contains emphasised keywords and phrases, potentially to enliven prose which resembles something from a human resources handbook. It may be typical in the more micromanaged sections of the Ubuntu community to berate a critic for their impertinence, where dissent and criticism can be blunted or suppressed in the shadow of the ever-present "Code of Conduct", but there's definitely nothing inappropriate in applying scrutiny to the activities of a commercial entity that may serve as one of the first points of contact for anyone starting out in the realm of Free Software development, seeking guidance about what is normal or typical around collaborating with others on such a basis. Meanwhile, we are left with some legitimate questions:
I've witnessed quite a few discussions about community-building and recognising/rewarding contributors, so I'm intrigued about the thinking going on behind the scenes. Maybe I should have read Jono Bacon's book...
Project Harmony Posted Oct 20, 2010 10:21 UTC (Wed) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link] I (personally) find the Canonical Contributor agreement to be sub-optimal in its current state (which is the reason why I have not signed it). I don't find its sub-optimalability to be a reason for publishing a sensational hypothesis, the better and pragmatic approach is probably to try and actually do something about fixing it, constructively."...seeking guidance about what is normal or typical around collaborating with others on such a basis."If my recollection is correct, Canonical are underwriting just such an initiative, called (for want of a better name), "Project Harmony"—where the intent is not to discuss the perceived merits (or disadvantages) of Copyright assignment, but on how to make the process annoy the least number of people when it does crop up.
Project Harmony Posted Oct 20, 2010 11:42 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] I don't find its sub-optimalability to be a reason for publishing a sensational hypothesis, the better and pragmatic approach is probably to try and actually do something about fixing it, constructively. Well, it looks like an open-and-shut case to me: Canonical's position is that there's no other way that would work on a global basis, so that's the way it is. As for sensationalism, there's a single contributor agreement for a huge list of projects which, aside from various valid points made elsewhere about balancing project and contributor interests according to each project's specific profile, looks like quite a land grab at first glance. If my recollection is correct, Canonical are underwriting just such an initiative, called (for want of a better name), "Project Harmony"where the intent is not to discuss the perceived merits (or disadvantages) of Copyright assignment, but on how to make the process annoy the least number of people when it does crop up. Sure, lots of projects usually decide to adopt some kind of contributor agreement, and it arguably makes sense to prevent "agreement proliferation", but the agreement in question isn't a great advertisement for the company leading such an initiative. And they could have waited until the eventual demise of Apache Harmony before stealing its name.
Project Harmony Posted Oct 20, 2010 13:19 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
Given how completely *unharmonious* Apache Harmony was (due to choosing a license that made it impossible to share code with the other already existing free Java class libraries), I'd be rather wary of copying its name at all. :)
Project Harmony Posted Oct 21, 2010 21:37 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Calling a project 'Harmony' is like calling a project 'Open*': a guarantee of acrimony. (Open* is also a guarantee of a considerable degree of closedness.)
Project Harmony Posted Oct 21, 2010 23:38 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This is like countries calling themselves »The Democratic People's Republic of Somewhere«. Chances are that such a place isn't in fact a republic (usually a dictatorship of sorts) and isn't particularly democratic, meaning that most people there don't get much of a say in what goes on, either.
|
|||||||||||||