4 ms·
Yeah, fully free would be something like selling GPL exceptions for the exact same product. I really like selling exceptions. The product is available to ever
by jordigh 12y ago
Yeah, fully free would be something like selling GPL exceptions for the exact same product.
I really like selling exceptions. The product is available to everyone in its entirety without restriction, but the copyright holders are the only ones who can sell non-copyleft versions of it. Everyone else can still sell it under the terms of the GPL, like selling Debian CDs. It shifts the scarcity in a different direction, treats everyone fairly, and everyone who creates derivative works pays: either by giving back code or by paying for the privilege to not give back code.
Selling exceptions seems to me to be the right way to commercialise the actual product itself instead of support around that product. I know of FFTW and hg4j who do this now, and Qt used to do it. It's a good business model.
- jamespo 12y agoWhen the software is typically used for SAAS products and not "distributed" in the same way as something using eg Qt libraries the business case isn't as compelling however.
- jordigh 12y agoIn that case, you sell AGPL exceptions.
- sanderjd 12y agoIs there any really good documentation (book, article, series, etc.) on all the different models for this sort of thing, how they work, and it what situations they are appropriate?
- davidw 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-source... is a decent starting point.
- sarciszewski 12y agoNot that I've seen, but there should be. Maybe we can motivate some lawyers to put something together? :D
- sanderjd 12y agoYeah a "from the trenches" collaboration between some people who have taken different approaches and the lawyers who worked with them would be really valuable to me. (Hint: if anybody fits that description, I'm saying I'd pay good money for it!)
- saosebastiao 12y agoIt is worth noting that this is also the opinion of RMS.
- hyp0 12y agoDo you have a reference for that? I thought he was against dual-licensing (i.e. selling a commercial license for your GPL code). BTW I did this. It worked, but I stopped because some companies took months to pay: they already had the code. This wore me down.
- saosebastiao 12y agohttps://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
- jordigh 12y agoBtw, the GPL is a commercial license. I wish people would stop thinking that the opposite of GPL is commercial, otherwise businesses like Red Hat couldn't exist. The GPL explicitly allows selling the software. It just doesn't allow locking it down. FTFGPL: You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.