2 ms·
Ghostscript was dual-licensed, and not exactly the same as this scenario; though the end result is pretty similar. The Ghostscript folks never set a specific da
by SwellJoe 10y ago
Ghostscript was dual-licensed, and not exactly the same as this scenario; though the end result is pretty similar. The Ghostscript folks never set a specific date on when the proprietary version would be GPL, as far as I know; they would do new releases of the proprietary version, and then the older and slightly less capable version would be open sourced.
That's not to say calling it a time-bomb makes it an entirely novel idea. My company has been doing it for 10+ years now with Virtualmin (which has a GPL and commercial version, and we roll the commercial features down into GPL as new features come along in the commercial version, and as we can afford to do so). But, honestly, it's kind of an awful business model. We've been making a living at it all this time, but I wouldn't call it a success; we'd make higher salaries working for others. I'd like to find other ways to make a living from Open Source, that pay better (and aren't doing service contracting), but I haven't had much luck at it in 20 years of trying.
- Arnt 10y agoISTR there being a promise mentioning some period... 18 months? I don't care though. I think L. Peter Deutsch made his money by means that have ~nothing to do with the license. His licensing didn't break his business model, that's all. My own little palace is also largely paid for, and open source has something to do with that pleasant fact, but I hindsight I don't think licensing mattered much. FOSS licensing, and all the arguments about varieties of licensing, is a digression. Success comes from luck+work+xfactor, and whatever xfactor may be, license discussions isn't it.
- cbsmith 10y agoIt was a specific time period. I thought it was 12 months, but maybe it was 18. Either way, Stallman didn't like it, but he was willing to work with it, because it was better than the alternative.