4 ms·

A common misconception is that under GPL all your code must be released to the public. This is not true. You only have to give code to the user after purchase.

A common misconception is that under GPL all your code must be released to the public. This is not true. You only have to give code to the user after purchase. Now, it's true that the user could then upload your software to the public (under gpl), but many of the issues surrounding that (such as lost sales #) aren't as bad as people imagine they are, and in the foss world are generally made up for by high-maintainence intervals (so forks would be behind feature-wise), and support/service contracts to augment the traditional sales model. (Redhat model)

lemming 9y ago
Do you have an example of a commercially successful GPL desktop app?
- ungamed 9y ago
  VLC , but it has LGPL and GPL components iirc.
  - paavohtl 9y ago
    How is a free-as-in-beer video player "commercially succesful"?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    What part of VLC is commercially succesful? Heck, they couldn't even put it on the iOS App Store for free...
- SXX 9y ago
  Synergy [1] https://symless.com/synergy https://symless.com/synergy [2] https://github.com/symless/synergy-core https://github.com/symless/synergy-core
  - coldtea 9y ago
    That's only some "core" for the software, not the full software, which is kept proprietary. And even that could hurt their business if somebody used the core to build their own app for the same target market on top of it.
    - SXX 9y ago
      I wouldn't say about what available on GitHub today, but up until year ago all source code was included and they only sold precompiled binaries and support. Also I doubt they can really change anything about that because Synergy never required CLA and it's under GPLv2. I pretty sure their "core" naming is just another way to promote usage of paid version, but you can still compile it yourself and easily remove all license checks.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        Isn't that more proof that it doesn't work well though? Why would they do all these changes if the previous model worked well for making them money?
        SXX 9y ago
        Previous model was usual open source community-driven project with donations and it's obviously didn't worked, but Synergy was developed by different team at different times and looks like they find what works for them. It's tarted 3 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2fydpm/synergy_gpl_input_sharing_software_gone_paid/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2fydpm/synergy_gpl_i... Of course it's not shiny VC funded company with 10000% growth, but I guess it's profitable business. Though it's not that much different from what Red Hat doing by selling support even if it's on small scale.
- tea_lover 9y ago
  https://www.knime.com/ https://www.knime.com/
pksadiq 9y ago
> You only have to give code to the user after purchase. IANAL. You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. Most people don't care about the source. And you require only to provide source for people who obtained the binary legally. Nobody else can demand for source code. Say for example, most of the D-Link routers come with a warranty card saying the software is GPL and is available on request. Period. You can also void the warranty of the software (and hardware) in case the software you sold was replaced with a modified version (afaik, requesting for source can't make the warranty void). There are a few things to consider: GPL v2 requires you to produce the source code in CD/Floppy (or like media), while GPL v3 allows you to have the source uploaded to net (or sent via email).
- 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
  > You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. I think you're mixing mutually exclusive options. As I understand it, GPL requires you to either provide source code up-front on the same terms as the binaries (I think the relevant phrase in GPLv3 is "equivalent access"), or alternatively provide a written offer to provide the source code to anyone who requests it. The reason the offer must be to anyone is that your customers can distribute that offer with the binaries in lieu of source code. That way, they have the ability to redistribute/"convey" the software in a compliant way even though they don't have source code. > GPL v2 requires you to produce the source code in CD/Floppy (or like media) Unless I'm missing something, GPLv2 just says "a medium customarily used for software interchange", not specifying that it must be any sort of disk/tape.
- halostatue 9y ago
  There’s one other clause that you’re missing: you may not further restrict the redistribution of GNU GPLed software (either source or binary). So D-Link may restrict distribution to “on request” by “people who bought our hardware”, but they cannot stop one or more of those people from redistributing the software obtained thereby. That, plus the fact that if you incorporate any GNU GPLed software in your own software your own derivative software must be licensable under the GNU GPL, or be more liberally licensed, makes for the uncomfortable discussions with lawyers about use of GNU GPLed software in any company.
coldtea 9y ago
>A common misconception is that under GPL all your code must be released to the public. This is not true. You only have to give code to the user after purchase. Now, it's true that the user could then upload your software to the public (under gpl), but many of the issues surrounding that (such as lost sales #) aren't as bad as people imagine they are Really?
- rwmj 9y ago
  The company I work for seems to be doing OK: https://finance.google.co.uk/finance?q=NYSE:RHT https://finance.google.co.uk/finance?q=NYSE:RHT We actively buy proprietary companies and relicense their software under free software licenses.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    That's because they don't sell software, they sell support and services. Now, about actual software as a product success stories, where you don't sell to companies that need someone to blame (and thus opt for support contracts)?
no_wizard 9y ago
I feel like this works for some things, like Redhats core businesses for instance, as you noted. If I’m an indie software developer though and release say a tool for managing Wordpress sites or maybe I release an app that is like a crazy good bookmarks manager, how can I justify losing revenue when most users don’t care if the source is open and those who do probably won’t buy my product. Yet the inverse - one user getting that code and uploading it online - could damage me greatly? How do you reconcile that

lemming 9y ago

Do you have an example of a commercially successful GPL desktop app?

ungamed 9y ago
VLC , but it has LGPL and GPL components iirc.
- paavohtl 9y ago
  How is a free-as-in-beer video player "commercially succesful"?
- coldtea 9y ago
  What part of VLC is commercially succesful? Heck, they couldn't even put it on the iOS App Store for free...
SXX 9y ago
Synergy [1] https://symless.com/synergy https://symless.com/synergy [2] https://github.com/symless/synergy-core https://github.com/symless/synergy-core
- coldtea 9y ago
  That's only some "core" for the software, not the full software, which is kept proprietary. And even that could hurt their business if somebody used the core to build their own app for the same target market on top of it.
  - SXX 9y ago
    I wouldn't say about what available on GitHub today, but up until year ago all source code was included and they only sold precompiled binaries and support. Also I doubt they can really change anything about that because Synergy never required CLA and it's under GPLv2. I pretty sure their "core" naming is just another way to promote usage of paid version, but you can still compile it yourself and easily remove all license checks.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Isn't that more proof that it doesn't work well though? Why would they do all these changes if the previous model worked well for making them money?
      - SXX 9y ago
        Previous model was usual open source community-driven project with donations and it's obviously didn't worked, but Synergy was developed by different team at different times and looks like they find what works for them. It's tarted 3 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2fydpm/synergy_gpl_input_sharing_software_gone_paid/ https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2fydpm/synergy_gpl_i... Of course it's not shiny VC funded company with 10000% growth, but I guess it's profitable business. Though it's not that much different from what Red Hat doing by selling support even if it's on small scale.
tea_lover 9y ago
https://www.knime.com/ https://www.knime.com/

pksadiq 9y ago

> You only have to give code to the user after purchase. IANAL. You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. Most people don't care about the source. And you require only to provide source for people who obtained the binary legally. Nobody else can demand for source code. Say for example, most of the D-Link routers come with a warranty card saying the software is GPL and is available on request. Period. You can also void the warranty of the software (and hardware) in case the software you sold was replaced with a modified version (afaik, requesting for source can't make the warranty void). There are a few things to consider: GPL v2 requires you to produce the source code in CD/Floppy (or like media), while GPL v3 allows you to have the source uploaded to net (or sent via email).

0xcde4c3db 9y ago
> You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. I think you're mixing mutually exclusive options. As I understand it, GPL requires you to either provide source code up-front on the same terms as the binaries (I think the relevant phrase in GPLv3 is "equivalent access"), or alternatively provide a written offer to provide the source code to anyone who requests it. The reason the offer must be to anyone is that your customers can distribute that offer with the binaries in lieu of source code. That way, they have the ability to redistribute/"convey" the software in a compliant way even though they don't have source code. > GPL v2 requires you to produce the source code in CD/Floppy (or like media) Unless I'm missing something, GPLv2 just says "a medium customarily used for software interchange", not specifying that it must be any sort of disk/tape.
halostatue 9y ago
There’s one other clause that you’re missing: you may not further restrict the redistribution of GNU GPLed software (either source or binary). So D-Link may restrict distribution to “on request” by “people who bought our hardware”, but they cannot stop one or more of those people from redistributing the software obtained thereby. That, plus the fact that if you incorporate any GNU GPLed software in your own software your own derivative software must be licensable under the GNU GPL, or be more liberally licensed, makes for the uncomfortable discussions with lawyers about use of GNU GPLed software in any company.

coldtea 9y ago

>A common misconception is that under GPL all your code must be released to the public. This is not true. You only have to give code to the user after purchase. Now, it's true that the user could then upload your software to the public (under gpl), but many of the issues surrounding that (such as lost sales #) aren't as bad as people imagine they are Really?

rwmj 9y ago
The company I work for seems to be doing OK: https://finance.google.co.uk/finance?q=NYSE:RHT https://finance.google.co.uk/finance?q=NYSE:RHT We actively buy proprietary companies and relicense their software under free software licenses.
- coldtea 9y ago
  That's because they don't sell software, they sell support and services. Now, about actual software as a product success stories, where you don't sell to companies that need someone to blame (and thus opt for support contracts)?

no_wizard 9y ago

I feel like this works for some things, like Redhats core businesses for instance, as you noted. If I’m an indie software developer though and release say a tool for managing Wordpress sites or maybe I release an app that is like a crazy good bookmarks manager, how can I justify losing revenue when most users don’t care if the source is open and those who do probably won’t buy my product. Yet the inverse - one user getting that code and uploading it online - could damage me greatly? How do you reconcile that