6 ms·

Why would I pay for a copy of some GPL software when I could just wait for someone else to buy it and then get it from them for free?

nisa 13y ago
Derivates of GPL software are also GPL licenced. If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. The possibility of a dual licence gives the creator a compensation because he waives the rights the GPL gives him for you. Also: Support contracts. A lot of poeple live in the support ecosystem and adapt GPL/BSD software for costumers.
- GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
  > If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. Fixed: If you use ANY GPL code in your product you have to provide the source.(There are of course exeptions eg LGPL) Also it isn't simply derivative work that that can be forced to re-license under the GPLv3. If FreeBSD had elected to adopt a GPLv3 compiler and distribute the source(as they do with the compiler) then the FreeBSD kernel itself would become subject to it. In fact, it isn't just gcc which has this restriction. Any GPL v3 code isn't allowed in base. Further reading: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.shtml http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.sh...
  - TylerE 13y ago
    If you're going to be a pedant, get it right. You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy)
    - rickjames28 13y ago
      You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy) Actually, that's a common, but wrong interpretation. The whole work becomes GPL, but the code that links to GPL code doesn't have to be GPL.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It has to be "GPL-compatible" though, which means whoever you give it to can convert it to the GPL by adding the extra conditions of the GPL to it.
  - nly 13y ago
    Nonsense. Just putting GCC source code in to the BSD repository wouldn't magically spread the requirement that the entire project become GPL any more than keeping a copy on my hard drive requires I give the FSF the complete contents of my /home directory. What matters is the dependency/linkage. The GCC 'runtime library exception' firewalls all 'target code' from the GPLv3, and even allows proprietary preprocessors, linkers and assemblers (but nothing that would involve modifying GCC to split what it does in to more granular stages)
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      In particular, Apple shipped GCC with Darwin.
belorn 13y ago
#1 Support? #2 Hosting/cloudiness? #3 Administration? #4 Custom adaptation? #5 Privileged early access to updates/content files? All those different strategies has been used to "sell" GPL software. Even the last one has been used, even if their customers could repackage the update and redistribute it to non-paying customers.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  All of them fail for desktop software, this is why FOSS as business works only for developer tools or SaaS software.
  - teddyh 13y ago
    Perhaps. But even if no-one would pay money for a direct software download/package, this does not preclude sponsorship of companies to free software projects they wish to be more developed. Indeed, there are many such large projects.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    Not necessarily. For example there's the model used by the x264 project (and upcoming x265 project), they offer the encoder as free software under GPL but they also sell licences for using it in proprietary projects and apparnetly they (the developers) make good money this way. Then there's the recent example of Openshot, a GPL licenced video editor where the author went to kickstarter to gain funding for improving it greatly, the goal was $20.000 and it reached $45,028. I see a combination of these models as a future popular way of making money out of your open source efforts.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Your first example is a developer tool, as mentioned by me. Kickstarter projects is USA specific, and it seldom works if you need a steady income of money.
      - gillianseed 13y ago
nly 13y ago
Most commercial GPL software outfits make their money by dual-licensing, or charging for support or bespoke add-ons.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  I pointed this out elsewhere, but dual-licensing isn't selling GPL software; it's more like giving away proprietary software under the GPL.

nisa 13y ago

Derivates of GPL software are also GPL licenced. If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. The possibility of a dual licence gives the creator a compensation because he waives the rights the GPL gives him for you. Also: Support contracts. A lot of poeple live in the support ecosystem and adapt GPL/BSD software for costumers.

GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
> If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. Fixed: If you use ANY GPL code in your product you have to provide the source.(There are of course exeptions eg LGPL) Also it isn't simply derivative work that that can be forced to re-license under the GPLv3. If FreeBSD had elected to adopt a GPLv3 compiler and distribute the source(as they do with the compiler) then the FreeBSD kernel itself would become subject to it. In fact, it isn't just gcc which has this restriction. Any GPL v3 code isn't allowed in base. Further reading: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.shtml http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.sh...
- TylerE 13y ago
  If you're going to be a pedant, get it right. You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy)
  - rickjames28 13y ago
    You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy) Actually, that's a common, but wrong interpretation. The whole work becomes GPL, but the code that links to GPL code doesn't have to be GPL.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      It has to be "GPL-compatible" though, which means whoever you give it to can convert it to the GPL by adding the extra conditions of the GPL to it.
- nly 13y ago
  Nonsense. Just putting GCC source code in to the BSD repository wouldn't magically spread the requirement that the entire project become GPL any more than keeping a copy on my hard drive requires I give the FSF the complete contents of my /home directory. What matters is the dependency/linkage. The GCC 'runtime library exception' firewalls all 'target code' from the GPLv3, and even allows proprietary preprocessors, linkers and assemblers (but nothing that would involve modifying GCC to split what it does in to more granular stages)
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    In particular, Apple shipped GCC with Darwin.

belorn 13y ago

#1 Support? #2 Hosting/cloudiness? #3 Administration? #4 Custom adaptation? #5 Privileged early access to updates/content files? All those different strategies has been used to "sell" GPL software. Even the last one has been used, even if their customers could repackage the update and redistribute it to non-paying customers.

pjmlp 13y ago
All of them fail for desktop software, this is why FOSS as business works only for developer tools or SaaS software.
- teddyh 13y ago
  Perhaps. But even if no-one would pay money for a direct software download/package, this does not preclude sponsorship of companies to free software projects they wish to be more developed. Indeed, there are many such large projects.
- gillianseed 13y ago
  Not necessarily. For example there's the model used by the x264 project (and upcoming x265 project), they offer the encoder as free software under GPL but they also sell licences for using it in proprietary projects and apparnetly they (the developers) make good money this way. Then there's the recent example of Openshot, a GPL licenced video editor where the author went to kickstarter to gain funding for improving it greatly, the goal was $20.000 and it reached $45,028. I see a combination of these models as a future popular way of making money out of your open source efforts.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Your first example is a developer tool, as mentioned by me. Kickstarter projects is USA specific, and it seldom works if you need a steady income of money.
    - gillianseed 13y ago

nly 13y ago

Most commercial GPL software outfits make their money by dual-licensing, or charging for support or bespoke add-ons.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
I pointed this out elsewhere, but dual-licensing isn't selling GPL software; it's more like giving away proprietary software under the GPL.