3 ms·
What no, open core is not dual licensing, at least, not by what is meant here with "dual licensing". Dual licensing is about selling exceptions. Selling copyle
by jordigh 8y ago
What no, open core is not dual licensing, at least, not by what is meant here with "dual licensing".
Dual licensing is about selling exceptions. Selling copyleft exceptions. There's no dual licensing without copyleft, because there is no exception to sell. And yes, it requires a single copyright holder. FFTW is an example of dual licensing. Octave gets FFTW because we like copyleft and Matlab gets FFTW because they like to pay to hide their code.
But it doesn't just have to be a library. MongoDB also sells exceptions because people are irrationally afraid of the AGPL.
I think you were confused by software like Firefox which is dual or triple-licensed and all recipients get to pick which license they want to follow, but that's not what was being discussed here.
- mikekchar 8y agoSigh... you are right about the copyleft thing. I'm not sure where my head was. Just so I get this right: you're saying that "open core" is essentially having a copyleft license and a proprietary license, while "dual licensing" is having a copyleft license and another non-copyleft free software license? If so, I can understand what you are saying :-)
- jordigh 8y agoOpen core is freemium. You can use the base under a free license but if you want fancy features, those are under a non-free license. Selling exceptions (or what someone else called, "dual licensing") means everyone gets the same software, both free and non-free, but people who don't want copyleft have to pay.