It's a dual-licensing model. Shankland doesn't seem to understand.
It's a dual-licensing model. Shankland doesn't seem to understand.
Posted Dec 17, 2002 17:50 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)Parent article: Mandrake flirts with non-open source (News.com)
It's a dual-licensing model, GPL plus a commercial license for the supported version. Shankland doesn't seem to understand all of the implications - for example you can copy it as much as you want, but the copies won't be supported. I don't percieve this as a move away from Open Source.
I hope Mandrake is managing the dual-licensing issues correctly - they must either own the entire copyright, including all contributed changes, or get the right to relicense from all change contributors.
Bruce
Posted Dec 17, 2002 20:19 UTC (Tue)
by Duncan (guest, #6647)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Dec 18, 2002 10:21 UTC (Wed)
by pointwood (guest, #2814)
[Link] (2 responses)
Also, what exactly do they mean with "gives faster access to updates" - I suppose a lot of the updates will be security fixes - will those be released with a delay to those not paying?
Posted Dec 18, 2002 10:32 UTC (Wed)
by odaf (guest, #5069)
[Link]
I don't understand why they will not sell support for the GPL'ed version?
There is only one version, two licenses.
You can see as if you pay for support, you get another licence option more, but you allways have the rights GPL gives to you.
Also, what exactly do they mean with "gives faster access to updates" - I suppose a lot of the updates will be security fixes - will those be released with a delay to those not paying?
Related to this issue, the press release do not clarify a lot, but I have checked and there is a MNF subdir in the updates directory in the Mandrake ftp mirrors, that doesn't was there some days ago, so I have to conclude that security updates will be available as in any other Mandrake Soft product.
As I have heard from some people, your posibilities with Mandrake Soft software are wider, as you can install MNF specific develpments over your Mandrake Linux 9.0 as the RPM are in contrib.
Posted Dec 19, 2002 4:28 UTC (Thu)
by Duncan (guest, #6647)
[Link]
> I hope Mandrake is managing the dual-licensing issues correctly - Dual-license simply codifying an accepted OSS vending model?
> they must either own the entire copyright, including all contributed
> changes, or get the right to relicense from all change contributors.
From the article: <quote>
The firewall offerings include Mandrake-written code, to which it owns the copyright, as
well as software taken from the open-source domain. [] Though the licenses may
differ, the software is technologically identical, MandrakeSoft said. []
The unsupported, GPL version may be freely copied and changed [but the] GPL
requires that any changes [] be published publicly if the modified version is distributed.
The commercial version may be installed on only one computer[.] MandrakeSoft
supports the product and gives faster access to updates. ** In addition, business
partners may change the software without requiring the
changes to be published. **
</quote, emphasis mine>
That COULD be a bit hairy, considering they "include Mandrake-written code, to which
it owns the copyright, as well as software taken from the open-source domain." I
haven't read the commercial license (it wasn't linked and I'm to lazy to go look it up),
but it's possible they could do this without conflict with the GPL, *PROVIDED* the
license is written with that in mind.
Here's the idea: The GPL doesn't prohibit changing the code and keeping it secret if
the changes are only used internally -- not distributed outside the company making the
changes. However, the corporate decision makers Mandrake is targeting may not
understand that. What Mdk could be doing is simply spelling that out specifically in the
commercially licensed version, specifically giving them permission to modify the code,
as long as it isn't distributed outside the company. To the corporate-think they target,
that would look reasonable, as Mdk wouldn't want competition with its own product
anyway (never mind the fact that its paid product is support, not code per se, so
disemination of the binaries with or without source wouldn't compete anyway, just run
into the GPL on the contributed property Mdk is using).
IOW, the commercial license may be little more than placing special emphasis on
portions of the GPL for the source and binaries themselves, while clarifying the paid-for
support relationship. Assuming that is the case, that's an accepted business model for
companies offering GPL-code based software, and the only thing new may be the
license specifically spelling it out.
I don't understand why they will not sell support for the GPL'ed version?Dual-license simply codifying an accepted OSS vending model?
Dual-license simply codifying an accepted OSS vending model?
> I don't understand why they will not sell support for the GPL'ed version? Dual-license simply codifying an accepted OSS vending model?
As both the story and ODAF mentioned, the code of the two versions is identical (or in
ODAF's terms, it's the same version, two different licenses). Thus, support on the one
is support on the other. Basically, the biggest difference between the two licenses
(AFAICT) is that the one entitles you to support, while the other doesn't -- the
commercial license entitles you to the support purchased with it. It appears from the
story that it also specifies you can make modifications (for distribution only within
the company, I assume, due to the inclusion of GPLed code from other contributors
who presumably haven't given their permission to using their code in a way
inconsistent with the GPL) without making the source public, as the GPL demands, but
only if you distribute the binaries publicly. (Thus, as I speculated earlier, I believe the
commercial license in this regard only spells out specifically the privilage inferred but
not specified in the GPL, of internal only modification and distribution rights.)
You always have the rights of the GPLed version, again as ODAF mentioned. Those
can't be and aren't taken away. The commercial license simply gives you a few more
rights, including the right to support purchased with that license.
I think this is in some ways just another example of someone complying with many
companies demand to PAY something for a product -- they simply can't process and
have no way to cope with one available for free, as it screws up their accounting
systems. <g> Thus, such companies won't even consider using a simple GPLed
product for free, while dual-licensing the product and charging a fee for the commercial
version at least lets the product into the running, where it can compete on it's merits.
> Also, what exactly do they mean with "gives faster access to updates" [?]
I interpret that to mean exactly the same thing it means when the claim is made with
the Mandrake Online product used with the main Mandrake distribution -- the updates
are made available to all at the same time, but the paid version includes more
automation, and perhaps priority access to a server for paid customer use only, that
isn't going to be as swamped as the free site could be, and will have the update a few
hours before it's likely to have fully propagated to all the various free mirrors around
the world.
In view of the support offered as well, it may also mean a bit more hand-holding for the
non-technically oriented "suits" if things go wrong. Linux in general is very
"egalitarian" (as compared to most traditional products, such as those available from
the big monopolist in the field, where unless the end user is a several hundred
thousand $$ account, they get no personal access) in that technically literate users
have far more access straight up to the developers directly, if they want and need it,
to help with troubleshooting bugs (that in fact is one of the prime reasons for the
success of open source, as Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and other
essays explore in detail), but those less fluent in "geek-speak" may be a bit
intimidated by direct developer contact, and/or not realize it is possible (and indeed
the process would break down if everyone contacted the developer for every little
problem, even if they couldn't frame up a proper bug report), particularly if they are
used to standard behavior in the proprietary software world. Thus, this "faster access
to updates" is a selling point designed to appeal to the less technically literate "suits"
that so often make the $$ decisions in companies, not the geeks that know how and
where to get the updates on their own, and are accustomed to habitually /
compulsively checking for them on a regular basis.