Choosing an open source license (NewsForge) [LWN.net]

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 12:09 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
In reply to: Choosing an open source license (NewsForge) by Kope
Parent article: Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

In a GPL license a user is free to do what RMS wants.

If that's the case, why does the GPL explicitly state that "it places NO restrictions on the end user, indeed it is irrelevant to the end user"? (my paraphrase, but RMS's intention and meaning)

Cheers
Wol

(Log in to post comments)

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 16:29 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

The GPL permits a very profitable business model that RMS does not approve of: dual GPL/proprietary licensing. That is, a user of a library can accept the GPL or else pay money for the privilege of using the code in proprietary software. TrollTech, the makers of QT, have become a profitable company based on this model.

dual license model is "rms ok"

Posted Jul 27, 2004 17:44 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

RMS approves of the dual license business model. But Trolltech only use that model for *some* (most?) of their software. Some of their software is exclusively proprietary.

Sorry I can't provide the reference, I'm running out the door as I write this. I think he spoke of this in a previous LWN.net interview. In the interview he endorsed both the MySQL and the Trolltech models, but in a follow up he clarified that hadn't known that the trolltech model was different to the MySQL one, and he retracted his endorsement.

dual license model is "rms ok"

Posted Jul 28, 2004 4:06 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Nope. He reluctantly accepts it as useful, but he believes that proprietary software is always wrong (I disagree with him on that).

if you need the reference:

Posted Jul 28, 2004 13:58 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

RMS says: ``I think it is acceptable to do what MySQL AB and TrollTech do: release under the GPL, but sell alternative licenses permitting proprietary extensions to their code. My understanding is that all the code they release is available as free software, which means they do not develop any proprietary softwre; that's why their practice is acceptable.''

Below that paragraph is: ``(Footnote: RMS added later: "I later learned that TrollTech does develop proprietary software. I apologize for having mentioned it erroneously.")''