4 ms·

Can you make money writing and selling copyleft-licensed software? The licenses always appeared to me to make that difficult. I write one, sell it, and the pu

by dhimes 10y ago

Can you make money writing and selling copyleft-licensed software? The licenses always appeared to me to make that difficult. I write one, sell it, and the purchaser can now give it away for free. But I probably just don't understand it.

cyphar 10y ago
The same argument is true for any free software. If you sell free software, then the purchaser necessarily must have the freedom to distribute said software. So copyleft hasn't changed anything in that regard. And there are several companies that sell free (and even copylefted) software. SUSE and RedHat are the prime examples -- the way it works is that you sell support licenses. So if they want to get L3 support for a bug they found (or want you to work on a new feature) they have to pay you. It's a fairly simple model (though more complicated than the standard proprietary model of "my binaries are holy and you must pay me for them" -- which I always found to make no sense because software isn't a real thing).
- dhimes 10y ago
  I was really asking a question, but I think I understand your answer. I can see where there is a business case for it, but also the other. As an example from another field, my architect drew up plans for my house. I'm only allowed to use those plans for that house. I can't build another house just like it, and I can't sell the plans to somebody else. His expertise and hard work went into making the plans. It's no more "real" than a print-out of a program. Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living if other architects could just take his plans and use them. And the idea of selling giving the program away for free but charging to fix the errors may not be the best for all cases. I can see the case for copyleft, but I don't think it's the only case. (Not that you said it was- in fact, I've heard some people say something like that but not too many.)
  - cyphar 10y ago
    > I can't build another house just like it, and I can't sell the plans to somebody else. That wouldn't be considered "free software" if house designs were the same as software. But they aren't -- software serves a functional purpose and is something you use constantly throughout your life. House plans are essentially used once to build your house and that's about it. Though of course you could argue that an architect could have a business model that allows for their clients to resell the plans (by selling customisations to plans or creating new plans for each customer). > Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living if other architects could just take his plans and use them. It would also be hard for "users" of the plans to be able to ask for another architect's opinion on the plans. Or to say "this architect is not doing as I say, I will take these plans to someone else who can help me better". > And the idea of selling giving the program away for free but charging to fix the errors may not be the best for all cases. You can also sell improvements or features. In fact, you can get contract work with people paying you to implement features in $freeSoftwareProject. Sure, it's not a very common model but it does exist. > but I don't think it's the only case. It's not the only case, but as a developer it's the case I always aim for. Licensing something under a lax license is generally a tactical move (it would be a greater benefit if this wasn't copylefted), but I personally will always opt for copyleft because then I can guarantee that the eventual users of my software will have freedom.
  - squeaky-clean 10y ago
    > His expertise and hard work went into making the plans. It's no more "real" than a print-out of a program. Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living if other architects could just take his plans and use them. That analogy doesn't totally work with software though. There aren't (for-profit) companies that focus solely on architecture without building software. It's more like if the architect also owned a construction firm and posted the plans for free on their website with a notice like "ConstructionCo provides these plans free of charge and AS-IS for use when building your own home. If you are looking for a team to build one of these plans, please consider contacting ConstructionCo as we have years of experience with these specific housing plans, and can offer you a warranty and home-insurance as part of a package. If you like these plans, but want modifications to the design, ConstructionCo can gladly accommodate you for a price."
    - dhimes 10y ago
      Excellent. But the problem here is you don't have the 'construct the home' step in using software. You can (let's say) take the specs and 3d-print it. You only need to hire the firm for changes and bug-fixes, and, even then, if you wanted something unique you're out of luck because you have to give away your uniqueness. Maybe a better analogy would be writing songs. If you weren't allowed to copyright songs but only performances, then those who simply wrote songs would be out of luck, because those who could perform them better but couldn't write as well would simply take their work. Or if a writer couldn't copyright her book but only her readings of it.

by dhimes 10y ago

cyphar 10y ago

The same argument is true for any free software. If you sell free software, then the purchaser necessarily must have the freedom to distribute said software. So copyleft hasn't changed anything in that regard. And there are several companies that sell free (and even copylefted) software. SUSE and RedHat are the prime examples -- the way it works is that you sell support licenses. So if they want to get L3 support for a bug they found (or want you to work on a new feature) they have to pay you. It's a fairly simple model (though more complicated than the standard proprietary model of "my binaries are holy and you must pay me for them" -- which I always found to make no sense because software isn't a real thing).

dhimes 10y ago
I was really asking a question, but I think I understand your answer. I can see where there is a business case for it, but also the other. As an example from another field, my architect drew up plans for my house. I'm only allowed to use those plans for that house. I can't build another house just like it, and I can't sell the plans to somebody else. His expertise and hard work went into making the plans. It's no more "real" than a print-out of a program. Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living if other architects could just take his plans and use them. And the idea of selling giving the program away for free but charging to fix the errors may not be the best for all cases. I can see the case for copyleft, but I don't think it's the only case. (Not that you said it was- in fact, I've heard some people say something like that but not too many.)
- cyphar 10y ago
  > I can't build another house just like it, and I can't sell the plans to somebody else. That wouldn't be considered "free software" if house designs were the same as software. But they aren't -- software serves a functional purpose and is something you use constantly throughout your life. House plans are essentially used once to build your house and that's about it. Though of course you could argue that an architect could have a business model that allows for their clients to resell the plans (by selling customisations to plans or creating new plans for each customer). > Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living if other architects could just take his plans and use them. It would also be hard for "users" of the plans to be able to ask for another architect's opinion on the plans. Or to say "this architect is not doing as I say, I will take these plans to someone else who can help me better". > And the idea of selling giving the program away for free but charging to fix the errors may not be the best for all cases. You can also sell improvements or features. In fact, you can get contract work with people paying you to implement features in $freeSoftwareProject. Sure, it's not a very common model but it does exist. > but I don't think it's the only case. It's not the only case, but as a developer it's the case I always aim for. Licensing something under a lax license is generally a tactical move (it would be a greater benefit if this wasn't copylefted), but I personally will always opt for copyleft because then I can guarantee that the eventual users of my software will have freedom.
- squeaky-clean 10y ago
  > His expertise and hard work went into making the plans. It's no more "real" than a print-out of a program. Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living if other architects could just take his plans and use them. That analogy doesn't totally work with software though. There aren't (for-profit) companies that focus solely on architecture without building software. It's more like if the architect also owned a construction firm and posted the plans for free on their website with a notice like "ConstructionCo provides these plans free of charge and AS-IS for use when building your own home. If you are looking for a team to build one of these plans, please consider contacting ConstructionCo as we have years of experience with these specific housing plans, and can offer you a warranty and home-insurance as part of a package. If you like these plans, but want modifications to the design, ConstructionCo can gladly accommodate you for a price."
  - dhimes 10y ago
    Excellent. But the problem here is you don't have the 'construct the home' step in using software. You can (let's say) take the specs and 3d-print it. You only need to hire the firm for changes and bug-fixes, and, even then, if you wanted something unique you're out of luck because you have to give away your uniqueness. Maybe a better analogy would be writing songs. If you weren't allowed to copyright songs but only performances, then those who simply wrote songs would be out of luck, because those who could perform them better but couldn't write as well would simply take their work. Or if a writer couldn't copyright her book but only her readings of it.