3 ms·

Maybe? Most often, though, I see AGPL licenses paired with a commercial license, as well as a CLA that assigns the copyright of any contribution to the licensi

Maybe? Most often, though, I see AGPL licenses paired with a commercial license, as well as a CLA that assigns the copyright of any contribution to the licensing company allowing them to relicense the software with a commercial license. In this case, I don't see it protecting users' rights, but rather as a means to monetize the software.

webmobdev 3y ago
Yes, dual licensing is a one way to commercialise xGPL software. Note though that it still protects the developers' rights: 1. You have to seek explicit permission from the developer of the xGPL OSS code to use it under a different license. 2. The xGPL version of the software perpetually remains xGPL, even if a closed-source version is being sold. Compare that with other more permissive OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD. If I create an OSS software and license it under either MIT or BSD, you can close-source and distribute or sell it anytime without even needing to get my permission. Note though that the whole business model of close-sourced software stems from the capitalist belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. The harder something is to reverse-engineer, the harder you make it for your competition to match the features of your product. In our industry (software) this is ensured by closed-source softwares. This invites the question whether it is permissive license that have prevented truly open source business (with no closed-source software products) from emerging and flourishing? If there was no permissive licenses, where in OSS codes with such licenses can be easily turned to closed-source products, maybe the closed-source business model wouldn't have retained their attraction.

webmobdev 3y ago

Yes, dual licensing is a one way to commercialise xGPL software. Note though that it still protects the developers' rights: 1. You have to seek explicit permission from the developer of the xGPL OSS code to use it under a different license. 2. The xGPL version of the software perpetually remains xGPL, even if a closed-source version is being sold. Compare that with other more permissive OSS licenses, like MIT or BSD. If I create an OSS software and license it under either MIT or BSD, you can close-source and distribute or sell it anytime without even needing to get my permission. Note though that the whole business model of close-sourced software stems from the capitalist belief that the maximum value of a commercial software can only be derived when its source code is not shared. And this is true - when things can't be repaired, planned obsolescence is built-into it. The harder something is to reverse-engineer, the harder you make it for your competition to match the features of your product. In our industry (software) this is ensured by closed-source softwares. This invites the question whether it is permissive license that have prevented truly open source business (with no closed-source software products) from emerging and flourishing? If there was no permissive licenses, where in OSS codes with such licenses can be easily turned to closed-source products, maybe the closed-source business model wouldn't have retained their attraction.