4 ms·
You are absolutely correct, although the point still stands in the context of the discussion. They aren't making money from accepting money in exchange for GPL
by mwfunk 13y ago
You are absolutely correct, although the point still stands in the context of the discussion. They aren't making money from accepting money in exchange for GPL software (people can just grab CentOS if that's all they want), they're making money from support, services, and non-GPL software that gets bundled along with a bunch of GPL software.
The discussion is about whether someone could run a business that is every bit as financially successful as a business that sells proprietary software, by asking for money for GPL software, and not having any other sources of income. Some posters seem to think this is feasible; I would disagree.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoQuantum Leaps does dual licencing for the QP framework and commercially licences exactly the same code that it offers under the GPL. http://www.state-machine.com/licensing/index.php#Pricing http://www.state-machine.com/licensing/index.php#Pricing
- belorn 13y agoIt is a common method to monetize software development by the use of exclusion, and threaten ones customer with lawsuits if they don't comply. Is such abuse the most effective way to reach financially success? Maybe. Does it matter?