4 ms·

You don't need to make an application closed source to have in app purchases. Look at mobaxterm [http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/license.html http://mobaxterm.mob

by baldfat 11y ago

You don't need to make an application closed source to have in app purchases. Look at mobaxterm [http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/license.html http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/license.html] It is licensed under GPL version 3. It has a free version and a professional version which cost $69 per user. This does not break the GPL. You may already know this but it seems like a lot of developers think open source mean Free as in cost. [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html] This is also the reason why I don't like the term Free Software since people usually think it is speaking about the cost.

swisspol 11y ago
Yep, aware of it, I happen to have 3 apps on Mac / iOS App Stores already using this model :) - https://github.com/swisspol/ComicFlow https://github.com/swisspol/ComicFlow (quite popular) - https://github.com/swisspol/MP3CDMaker https://github.com/swisspol/MP3CDMaker - https://github.com/swisspol/CompareFolders https://github.com/swisspol/CompareFolders
cookiecaper 11y ago
Although the GPL allows authors to charge for software, it disposes of all legal copyright protections that make such charges practical. Charging for GPL software doesn't mean anyone will pay you, it just means that everyone will get the free builds from someone else, which is even less desirable than releasing free builds since you lose control of distribution. Look at Red Hat and CentOS for case in point.
- dec0dedab0de 11y ago
  umm.. Red Hat seems to be doing ok.
  - lmz 11y ago
    Red Hat does OK because they can sell support for an OS to enterprises. Selling support for a Git GUI to individual developers (even end user apps in general) is a bit harder.
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Please look at mobaxterm's model for an example. GPL licence [http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/download.html http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/download.html]
      - lmz 11y ago
        They provide integration of open components (which is good). Looking at their sources directory there does not seem to be an available build script to e.g. build a comparable installer (but that's legal). For a single app: take a look at what happened when XChat tried to sell their Windows binaries as shareware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XChat#Licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XChat#Licensing
      - tolle 11y ago
        Does anyone know if they are making any money?
- zapt02 11y ago
  Yeah, Red Hat is really bleeding money from the all the lost sales caused by CentOS. I can't believe they only made a puny 1.53 billion dollar in revenue last year.. </sarcasm> http://investors.redhat.com/financials-statements.cfm http://investors.redhat.com/financials-statements.cfm
  - corysama 11y ago
    Please note that the HN community takes a rather strict approach when moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!" comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not contribute to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of noise that covers Reddit.
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      The parent comment, however, was actually relevant to the point being discussed (whether or not the ability to fork a free-as-in-speech but not free-as-in-beer program is a significant risk to one's business model). Sarcasm or no, it's a valid point, and thus I feel trying to spout off admonitions in the name of the "HN community" is inappropriate in this context.
      - corysama 11y ago
        Yeah, this was iffy. I totally agree with the comment. But, when it comes to maintaining a community, it doesn't matter if you are right if you are a jerk about it. For the discussion: I recently paid for the Synergy software KVM even though it is GPL. Synergy's purchase process is very smooth. Paying $10 for the installers was much easier than compiling it myself. And, I was already had confidence that Synergy was useful, good quality, well-maintained software. So, I was happy to support it as long as doing so was convenient.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    Red Hat has never made money because of its GPL software. People want to buy their support and consulting services, which Red Hat incidentally only offers for RHEL, necessitating users buy a license if they are to get the product they actually want. People who try to sell GPL software as a standalone product do not fare well.
- Spivak 11y ago
  You know RedHat now controls the CentOS project right? http://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-and-centos-join-forces http://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-and-ce...
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    Yes. Does that change something? Red Hat finally acquiesced after 10 years. They started out threatening CentOS with a lawsuit, leading to the infamous "prominent North American enterprise Linux vendor" language that plagued CentOS's site until this deal was announced last year. If anything it's only further evidence for my argument.
- baldfat 11y ago
  GPL Encourages it doesn't discourage the charging of software. Please give me one source where they discourage charging fees for software. In regard to copyright you are 100% correct, but the GPL is copyleft not copyright. You can't blend in copyright and Open Source those are two different things unless the latest Google vs Oracle API fiasco follows through. My favorite IDE RStudio is AGPL which offers a Open Source license that also allows them to charge for added features. http://www.rstudio.com/pricing/ http://www.rstudio.com/pricing/ AGPL - The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works, specifically designed to ensure cooperation with the community in the case of network server software. [http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0]
- syllogism 11y ago
  You can always dual license, and sell the second, commercial-friendly license for a price. You need to be careful that you're the sole copyright holder though, so you need a strong contributor agreement.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    Sure, but this is not selling GPL software. This is giving GPL software out for free, and selling proprietary software. I'd be interested in cases where people have made substantial money selling GPL software as if it were proprietary software; that is, where they are able to get the consumer to pay for the software after a short trial, in order to retain the privilege of using the software long-term. The GPL grants this privilege anyway, which is the problem. The consumer doesn't gain any value by exchanging their valuable money for something they already have (the right to use your software), so they don't do it.
MichaelGG 11y ago
Wait, so I just bought MobaXterm (it's awesome just wish the UI was cleaner and faster) - I can go hand out copies to anyone I wish, legally? I don't want to do that, cause I'd prefer they get more money, but it's neat to know. (I'll double check the license of course.)
- leni536 11y ago
  While the source is free you can bump into trademark issues (I don't know if it's specifically true for MobaXterm though). You can go the CentOS or Iceweasel way, download the source, replace trademarked stuff and distribute the compiled binaries.

by baldfat 11y ago

swisspol 11y ago

Yep, aware of it, I happen to have 3 apps on Mac / iOS App Stores already using this model :) - https://github.com/swisspol/ComicFlow https://github.com/swisspol/ComicFlow (quite popular) - https://github.com/swisspol/MP3CDMaker https://github.com/swisspol/MP3CDMaker - https://github.com/swisspol/CompareFolders https://github.com/swisspol/CompareFolders

cookiecaper 11y ago

Although the GPL allows authors to charge for software, it disposes of all legal copyright protections that make such charges practical. Charging for GPL software doesn't mean anyone will pay you, it just means that everyone will get the free builds from someone else, which is even less desirable than releasing free builds since you lose control of distribution. Look at Red Hat and CentOS for case in point.

dec0dedab0de 11y ago
umm.. Red Hat seems to be doing ok.
- lmz 11y ago
  Red Hat does OK because they can sell support for an OS to enterprises. Selling support for a Git GUI to individual developers (even end user apps in general) is a bit harder.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Please look at mobaxterm's model for an example. GPL licence [http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/download.html http://mobaxterm.mobatek.net/download.html]
    - lmz 11y ago
      They provide integration of open components (which is good). Looking at their sources directory there does not seem to be an available build script to e.g. build a comparable installer (but that's legal). For a single app: take a look at what happened when XChat tried to sell their Windows binaries as shareware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XChat#Licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XChat#Licensing
    - tolle 11y ago
      Does anyone know if they are making any money?
zapt02 11y ago
Yeah, Red Hat is really bleeding money from the all the lost sales caused by CentOS. I can't believe they only made a puny 1.53 billion dollar in revenue last year.. </sarcasm> http://investors.redhat.com/financials-statements.cfm http://investors.redhat.com/financials-statements.cfm
- corysama 11y ago
  Please note that the HN community takes a rather strict approach when moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!" comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not contribute to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of noise that covers Reddit.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    The parent comment, however, was actually relevant to the point being discussed (whether or not the ability to fork a free-as-in-speech but not free-as-in-beer program is a significant risk to one's business model). Sarcasm or no, it's a valid point, and thus I feel trying to spout off admonitions in the name of the "HN community" is inappropriate in this context.
    - corysama 11y ago
      Yeah, this was iffy. I totally agree with the comment. But, when it comes to maintaining a community, it doesn't matter if you are right if you are a jerk about it. For the discussion: I recently paid for the Synergy software KVM even though it is GPL. Synergy's purchase process is very smooth. Paying $10 for the installers was much easier than compiling it myself. And, I was already had confidence that Synergy was useful, good quality, well-maintained software. So, I was happy to support it as long as doing so was convenient.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Red Hat has never made money because of its GPL software. People want to buy their support and consulting services, which Red Hat incidentally only offers for RHEL, necessitating users buy a license if they are to get the product they actually want. People who try to sell GPL software as a standalone product do not fare well.
Spivak 11y ago
You know RedHat now controls the CentOS project right? http://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-and-centos-join-forces http://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/red-hat-and-ce...
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Yes. Does that change something? Red Hat finally acquiesced after 10 years. They started out threatening CentOS with a lawsuit, leading to the infamous "prominent North American enterprise Linux vendor" language that plagued CentOS's site until this deal was announced last year. If anything it's only further evidence for my argument.
baldfat 11y ago
GPL Encourages it doesn't discourage the charging of software. Please give me one source where they discourage charging fees for software. In regard to copyright you are 100% correct, but the GPL is copyleft not copyright. You can't blend in copyright and Open Source those are two different things unless the latest Google vs Oracle API fiasco follows through. My favorite IDE RStudio is AGPL which offers a Open Source license that also allows them to charge for added features. http://www.rstudio.com/pricing/ http://www.rstudio.com/pricing/ AGPL - The GNU Affero General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works, specifically designed to ensure cooperation with the community in the case of network server software. [http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0]
syllogism 11y ago
You can always dual license, and sell the second, commercial-friendly license for a price. You need to be careful that you're the sole copyright holder though, so you need a strong contributor agreement.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Sure, but this is not selling GPL software. This is giving GPL software out for free, and selling proprietary software. I'd be interested in cases where people have made substantial money selling GPL software as if it were proprietary software; that is, where they are able to get the consumer to pay for the software after a short trial, in order to retain the privilege of using the software long-term. The GPL grants this privilege anyway, which is the problem. The consumer doesn't gain any value by exchanging their valuable money for something they already have (the right to use your software), so they don't do it.

MichaelGG 11y ago

Wait, so I just bought MobaXterm (it's awesome just wish the UI was cleaner and faster) - I can go hand out copies to anyone I wish, legally? I don't want to do that, cause I'd prefer they get more money, but it's neat to know. (I'll double check the license of course.)

leni536 11y ago
While the source is free you can bump into trademark issues (I don't know if it's specifically true for MobaXterm though). You can go the CentOS or Iceweasel way, download the source, replace trademarked stuff and distribute the compiled binaries.