3 ms·

Yes, you chose the wrong license without understanding its implications. > My sense is that adopting AGPL for a brand new product typically causes the product

Yes, you chose the wrong license without understanding its implications. > My sense is that adopting AGPL for a brand new product typically causes the product to be dead on arrival. It may hinder adoption (in the corporate world) but not contribution to the source. And if you want to promote the spirit of opensource and make money too, dual licensing with xGPL is the best way to go. MySQL is a successful example of this licensing and business model.

evanelias 3y ago
It's pretty telling that you listed only a single example product, and one which was first released twenty-eight years ago, and also one which raised venture capital. Just because dual-licensing has been successful in a very limited number of exceptional situations, does not mean that it is a reproducible path towards building a sustainable software business. Also keep in mind: * MySQL hasn't been an independent business for over 15 years. AFAIK there is no public information on its revenue or profitability. * Much of Oracle's recent work on the product has been on MySQL Heatwave, which is only available as a managed service. * Most MySQL Community Edition commits come from Oracle. * Meanwhile the company behind MariaDB, arguably a more "open" fork of MySQL, is having financial problems and may well end up having its stock de-listed soon. * The non-open-source Business Source License was originally created by MariaDB for their MaxScale product. The license's existence is fully backed by Monty Widenius, original creator of MySQL. To be clear, I'm not saying any of the above to criticize Oracle or MariaDB. Rather, just pointing out that a general statement of "dual licensing with xGPL is the best way to go" is not really backed by the facts on the ground. I must ask, do you run a commercial open source business yourself?
- webmobdev 3y ago
  MySQL is a successful product that was sold to Sun / Oracle for a BILLION dollars. MariaDB and Percona Server are good examples of competing businesses produced from a commercially successful GPL opensource software (MySQL): - MariaDB: https://mariadb.com/products/community-server/ https://mariadb.com/products/community-server/ - Percona Server for MySQL: https://www.percona.com/software/mysql-database/percona-server https://www.percona.com/software/mysql-database/percona-serv... Other additional examples of successfully commercialised xGPL products with different business models: - Red Hat Linux: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis... - QT: https://www.qt.io/licensing/ https://www.qt.io/licensing/ - Ghostscript: https://www.ghostscript.com/licensing/index.html https://www.ghostscript.com/licensing/index.html - WordPress: https://wordpress.com/ https://wordpress.com/ (based on https://wordpress.org/ https://wordpress.org/ ) - Buskill (hardware): https://www.buskill.in/ https://www.buskill.in/ - Moodle: https://moodle.com/ https://moodle.com/ (based on https://moodle.org/ https://moodle.org/) - ProtonMail: https://proton.me/mail https://proton.me/mail (based on https://github.com/ProtonMail https://github.com/ProtonMail ) - Tutanota: https://tutanota.com/ https://tutanota.com/ (based on https://github.com/tutao/tutanota/ https://github.com/tutao/tutanota/ ) - Dada Mail: https://www.dadamailproject.com/ https://www.dadamailproject.com/ - Dietlibc: https://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ https://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ The commercial success of a product totally depends on the business model you come up with, whatever be its opensource (or not) license. Corporates have a vested interest in promoting the propaganda that only a non-xGPL opensource license can be commercialised successfully simply because they cannot freely steal the source code of a competing xGPL licensed software. The real value of an FSF license, like the AGPL, is that it is designed to protect the copyright holders, and its users, "right to repair". And thus, it cannot be closed source by anyone (apart from the original copyright holders) once released under the said license (even if future versions are closed source, the old version under xGPL remain opensource perpetually). Other open source license (that are less stringent) are prioritised to increase developer contribution. Source code under such license can thus be closed-source even from the original copyright holder. But again, commercial success totally depends on the business model you come up with, irrespective of your license. The right license and the right business model will empower each other. Or cripple your business.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The real value of an FSF license, like the AGPL, is that it was designed to protect the copyright holders, and its users, “right to repair”. And thus, it cannot be closed source by anyone (apart from the original copyright holders) once released under the said license 17 USC Sec. 203 suggests that may not be strictly true in the US. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203
  - evanelias 3y ago
    > MySQL is a successful product that was sold to Sun / Oracle for a BILLION dollars "Successful exit" is not the same thing as a sustainable product or business model. I mentioned several key concerns in my previous reply, which you didn't address here at all. Specifically, if dual-licensed GPL was the best way to go, it wouldn't be the case that entities outside of MySQL/Oracle (e.g. AWS) were capturing a huge amount of MySQL's value/revenue, possibly exceeding that of the product's own revenue. Why else would development be shifted to the managed-service-only, closed-source MySQL Heatwave product? > MariaDB and Percona Server are good examples of competing businesses Yes, I'm very familiar with the MySQL ecosystem (click my profile). I mentioned several concerns specifically about MariaDB in my previous reply and you did not address those at all. You also didn't answer my question about whether you've ever run a commercial open source business, so I must conclude that you haven't. I do, and frankly I don't appreciate when other people -- who seemingly don't havie direct personal experience in this area -- attempt to confidently lecture me about how I supposedly chose the wrong license. Listing Red Hat in your reply also seems a bit ridiculous, given all the latest contention in that space over Red Hat threatening to cancel customer subscriptions if they republish RHEL's sources. If GPL-based software was the panacea you claim, things like this wouldn't be happening with ever-increasing frequency over the past couple years.
    - webmobdev 3y ago
      > ... if dual-licensed GPL was the best way to go, it wouldn't be the case that entities outside of MySQL/Oracle (e.g. AWS) were capturing a huge amount of MySQL's value/revenue ... Why else would development be shifted to the managed-service-only, closed-source MySQL Heatwave product? And do you realise that you are comparing corporates with two completely different philosophies and business model? It's absolutely in character for Oracle to use the loophole in the older GPL (that has since been fixed by the AGPL) to try to make MySQL closed-source again by offering it through a SaaS infrastructure. Oracle has never been a champion of the opensource movement, while the original owners of MySQL were. It is the same with IBM, who are now the owners of Red Hat Linux. And that shows in how they ran / run their business. We are discussing about opensource software business models only. Not open-source and closed-source ones (it should be a no-brainer that closed-source software business models are the most successful and profitable ones). > I mentioned several concerns specifically about MariaDB in my previous reply and you did not address those at all. Simply because it is irrelevant to our discussion. The success or failures of MySQL or MariaDB or Oracle's MySQL was/is not just solely because of its license and there are many other factors behind it (for example, MariaDB earned a lot of scorn from open source developers because they felt betrayed after its original source - MySQL - ended up in Oracle's hand). Nevertheless, MySQL is a great example of a commercially successful example of a dual-licensed GPL product. I have enough business experience, and a good understanding of open source software to understand its strength and limitation in a commercial setting. Honestly, you do need a lecture for not being able to see the obvious: 1. As per your own confessions, a competitor was able to use your open source code without sharing subsequent work on the codebase. This would obviously have never happened with the AGPL license, as the license compels others who distribute the software (even as SaaS) to share the source code. 2. You tried to change the codebase and / or license to make it more difficult for them to fork your code and use it. This shows your own confusion regarding the open source philosophy and your business model. Your code was used by others in the spirit of the open source license you chose. And yet, you continue to assert you are the wronged party? 3. It is also easy to see that you (wrongly) chose a permissive opensource license out of self-interest to your business (hoping to attract more developer contributions and then close source the product later when it becomes profitable, just as your competitor did) than out of an equal commitment to the open source philosophy. Your competitor outwitted you because you weren't knowledgable about licenses, your own business goals and business model.

evanelias 3y ago

It's pretty telling that you listed only a single example product, and one which was first released twenty-eight years ago, and also one which raised venture capital. Just because dual-licensing has been successful in a very limited number of exceptional situations, does not mean that it is a reproducible path towards building a sustainable software business. Also keep in mind: * MySQL hasn't been an independent business for over 15 years. AFAIK there is no public information on its revenue or profitability. * Much of Oracle's recent work on the product has been on MySQL Heatwave, which is only available as a managed service. * Most MySQL Community Edition commits come from Oracle. * Meanwhile the company behind MariaDB, arguably a more "open" fork of MySQL, is having financial problems and may well end up having its stock de-listed soon. * The non-open-source Business Source License was originally created by MariaDB for their MaxScale product. The license's existence is fully backed by Monty Widenius, original creator of MySQL. To be clear, I'm not saying any of the above to criticize Oracle or MariaDB. Rather, just pointing out that a general statement of "dual licensing with xGPL is the best way to go" is not really backed by the facts on the ground. I must ask, do you run a commercial open source business yourself?

webmobdev 3y ago
MySQL is a successful product that was sold to Sun / Oracle for a BILLION dollars. MariaDB and Percona Server are good examples of competing businesses produced from a commercially successful GPL opensource software (MySQL): - MariaDB: https://mariadb.com/products/community-server/ https://mariadb.com/products/community-server/ - Percona Server for MySQL: https://www.percona.com/software/mysql-database/percona-server https://www.percona.com/software/mysql-database/percona-serv... Other additional examples of successfully commercialised xGPL products with different business models: - Red Hat Linux: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis... - QT: https://www.qt.io/licensing/ https://www.qt.io/licensing/ - Ghostscript: https://www.ghostscript.com/licensing/index.html https://www.ghostscript.com/licensing/index.html - WordPress: https://wordpress.com/ https://wordpress.com/ (based on https://wordpress.org/ https://wordpress.org/ ) - Buskill (hardware): https://www.buskill.in/ https://www.buskill.in/ - Moodle: https://moodle.com/ https://moodle.com/ (based on https://moodle.org/ https://moodle.org/) - ProtonMail: https://proton.me/mail https://proton.me/mail (based on https://github.com/ProtonMail https://github.com/ProtonMail ) - Tutanota: https://tutanota.com/ https://tutanota.com/ (based on https://github.com/tutao/tutanota/ https://github.com/tutao/tutanota/ ) - Dada Mail: https://www.dadamailproject.com/ https://www.dadamailproject.com/ - Dietlibc: https://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ https://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ The commercial success of a product totally depends on the business model you come up with, whatever be its opensource (or not) license. Corporates have a vested interest in promoting the propaganda that only a non-xGPL opensource license can be commercialised successfully simply because they cannot freely steal the source code of a competing xGPL licensed software. The real value of an FSF license, like the AGPL, is that it is designed to protect the copyright holders, and its users, "right to repair". And thus, it cannot be closed source by anyone (apart from the original copyright holders) once released under the said license (even if future versions are closed source, the old version under xGPL remain opensource perpetually). Other open source license (that are less stringent) are prioritised to increase developer contribution. Source code under such license can thus be closed-source even from the original copyright holder. But again, commercial success totally depends on the business model you come up with, irrespective of your license. The right license and the right business model will empower each other. Or cripple your business.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The real value of an FSF license, like the AGPL, is that it was designed to protect the copyright holders, and its users, “right to repair”. And thus, it cannot be closed source by anyone (apart from the original copyright holders) once released under the said license 17 USC Sec. 203 suggests that may not be strictly true in the US. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203
- evanelias 3y ago
  > MySQL is a successful product that was sold to Sun / Oracle for a BILLION dollars "Successful exit" is not the same thing as a sustainable product or business model. I mentioned several key concerns in my previous reply, which you didn't address here at all. Specifically, if dual-licensed GPL was the best way to go, it wouldn't be the case that entities outside of MySQL/Oracle (e.g. AWS) were capturing a huge amount of MySQL's value/revenue, possibly exceeding that of the product's own revenue. Why else would development be shifted to the managed-service-only, closed-source MySQL Heatwave product? > MariaDB and Percona Server are good examples of competing businesses Yes, I'm very familiar with the MySQL ecosystem (click my profile). I mentioned several concerns specifically about MariaDB in my previous reply and you did not address those at all. You also didn't answer my question about whether you've ever run a commercial open source business, so I must conclude that you haven't. I do, and frankly I don't appreciate when other people -- who seemingly don't havie direct personal experience in this area -- attempt to confidently lecture me about how I supposedly chose the wrong license. Listing Red Hat in your reply also seems a bit ridiculous, given all the latest contention in that space over Red Hat threatening to cancel customer subscriptions if they republish RHEL's sources. If GPL-based software was the panacea you claim, things like this wouldn't be happening with ever-increasing frequency over the past couple years.
  - webmobdev 3y ago
    > ... if dual-licensed GPL was the best way to go, it wouldn't be the case that entities outside of MySQL/Oracle (e.g. AWS) were capturing a huge amount of MySQL's value/revenue ... Why else would development be shifted to the managed-service-only, closed-source MySQL Heatwave product? And do you realise that you are comparing corporates with two completely different philosophies and business model? It's absolutely in character for Oracle to use the loophole in the older GPL (that has since been fixed by the AGPL) to try to make MySQL closed-source again by offering it through a SaaS infrastructure. Oracle has never been a champion of the opensource movement, while the original owners of MySQL were. It is the same with IBM, who are now the owners of Red Hat Linux. And that shows in how they ran / run their business. We are discussing about opensource software business models only. Not open-source and closed-source ones (it should be a no-brainer that closed-source software business models are the most successful and profitable ones). > I mentioned several concerns specifically about MariaDB in my previous reply and you did not address those at all. Simply because it is irrelevant to our discussion. The success or failures of MySQL or MariaDB or Oracle's MySQL was/is not just solely because of its license and there are many other factors behind it (for example, MariaDB earned a lot of scorn from open source developers because they felt betrayed after its original source - MySQL - ended up in Oracle's hand). Nevertheless, MySQL is a great example of a commercially successful example of a dual-licensed GPL product. I have enough business experience, and a good understanding of open source software to understand its strength and limitation in a commercial setting. Honestly, you do need a lecture for not being able to see the obvious: 1. As per your own confessions, a competitor was able to use your open source code without sharing subsequent work on the codebase. This would obviously have never happened with the AGPL license, as the license compels others who distribute the software (even as SaaS) to share the source code. 2. You tried to change the codebase and / or license to make it more difficult for them to fork your code and use it. This shows your own confusion regarding the open source philosophy and your business model. Your code was used by others in the spirit of the open source license you chose. And yet, you continue to assert you are the wronged party? 3. It is also easy to see that you (wrongly) chose a permissive opensource license out of self-interest to your business (hoping to attract more developer contributions and then close source the product later when it becomes profitable, just as your competitor did) than out of an equal commitment to the open source philosophy. Your competitor outwitted you because you weren't knowledgable about licenses, your own business goals and business model.