5 ms·
No, it is not. But it is a result of overconfidence, caused by belief that GPL is a silver bullet. People, who run BSD-licensed projects, in my observation, ten
by ilkhd2 17y ago
No, it is not.
But it is a result of overconfidence, caused by belief that
GPL is a silver bullet. People, who run BSD-licensed projects, in my observation, tend to be more cautious, because BSD license provides no protection against "privatization".
- antirez 17y agoI'm not convinced, this is what I read at http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/importance-of-license-model-of-mysql-or.html http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/importance-of-license... Most of the technology partners, where most of the innovation in the MySQL space happen nowadays, depend on being able to get licenses for MySQL so that they can combine their closed source application or closed code (like storage engines) with MySQL This is clearly a problem with GPL. The economic model of a BSD-licensed product can't be broken just not selling licenses, as everybody will continue to use the code for whatever purpose.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- prodigal_erik 17y agoRefusing to subsidize proprietary work is the purpose of the GPL. It's only a problem for vendors who become dependent on buying non-GPL licenses and will not open their own work. And decrying a problem only after he stopped getting paid for perpetuating it? Wow. That's like selling your house and then urging it be condemned.
- camccann 17y agoNo, the problem is the dual-license strategy combined with changing business models. If it had been pure GPL from the start, anyone who couldn't work with that would never have used it in the first place. But because they sold licenses for closed source use, now there are customers using it who may be stuck choosing from three unpleasant options--keep using unmaintained code (if the license even allows that), find a way to use GPLed code, or find a new database. It's not really any different from what would happen if a proprietary software vendor went out of business or killed a product, since that's effectively exactly what happened. The fact that the code also exists in GPL form is largely irrelevant and I don't know why you're focusing on it. Without the dual-license strategy available, BSD software doesn't really HAVE an economic model other than charity (nor does pure GPL of course--just look at RMS--but at least GPL gives you the warm feeling of knowing that no one will be purely freeloading off your generosity).
- antirez 17y agoI don't think so. BSD business models: * Services: training, consultancy, ... and MOST important: * Closed source "PRO" versions. This has a number of declinations. For instance only add "enterprise" features in the closed source fork, or alternatively develop an important feature for the closed source fork and release it for the open source one after N months, and so forth. A plugin system can also work: develop a number of closed source plugins about features that are not so general to enter in the real release but that many people think they absolutely need, and sell this plugins. Note that here you are not undervaluing the open source fork as this are stuff that anyway you don't think are so general to be included.
- prodigal_erik 17y agoWhy did you omit work for hire? New features aren't free software when they haven't been created yet, even if you open them at release.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]