Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software [LWN.net]

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

Posted May 19, 2011 19:36 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
In reply to: Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software by shmget
Parent article: Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

There are actually two models of operation that could involve non-open licensing, and you are making an assumption about what is involved.

one model is to have the exact same code with multiple licenses, one open, one closed.

personally I don't have a problem with this, either way supports the product (the open license with code, the closed license with money), and even RMS doesn't have a problem with this approach

the second model is the one you are concerned with where the company has a limited product under an open license, and an 'enhanced' product under a closed license.

I think this can be done sanely, and don't have a big problem with it, but it does have the problem that you describe where a company may be reluctant to implement something in the open version that they have implemented in the closed version

I believe that ghostscript is an example of this done sanely. As I understand it they develop enhancements that go into a closed version, but that version automatically becomes open after a given time period

(Log in to post comments)

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

Posted May 20, 2011 15:06 UTC (Fri) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

"one model is to have the exact same code with multiple licenses, one open, one closed."
I don't understand. why bother with the later then ? what's the benefit ?

"As I understand it they develop enhancements that go into a closed version, but that version automatically becomes open after a given time period"

That sound like a reasonable compromise I could live with...
But I think that Copyright assignment is an overkill to achieve this goal... although I am unsure of how to have the licensed worded to _guarantee_ that outcome (i.e not just hoping that the 'company' will do the 'Right Thing(tm)')

Bear in mind that 'Corporations' are psychopathic by design (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation )

Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software

Posted May 20, 2011 18:22 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

>>"one model is to have the exact same code with multiple licenses, one open, one closed."

>I don't understand. why bother with the later then ? what's the benefit ?

the benifit is that companies that are paranoid about GPL 'infection' no longer need to worry about it. MySQL's business was based on doing exactly this, selling the same code that was available under the GPL under a closed license for people who didn't want to comply with the GPL (or were afraid of what the GPL could require them to do, even if it didn't)

I agree that full copyright assignment is overkill for any of this. I'm not trying to claim that full copyright assignment is needed for anything.

however I am saying that there are reasonable ways to dual-license code, and that if an organization is going to do so, they will need some contributer agreement that gives them the right to do so with the code contributed from outsiders.