Dual licensing

[Marius Amado Alves]

Ok, since you bit the academic discussion, here it goes.

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:

> If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are
> similar in most respects  - - except one distributed as a proprietary
> product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other through
> open source dual -licensing - - the program that should do better is the
> latter, not because it has a "closed source" counterpart, but because of the
> benefits that follow from the open source version.

I fully agree.

And of course with only the words "closes" and "open" you must call 
"closed" to the entirely closed and "open" to the partially open.

> No doubt there may be
> exceptions in practice (a project may not be managed carefully or there may
> be problems with free-riding), but, in the main, the dual licensing model
> will do better than the closed source proprietary model; hence, the
> significant feature of dual-licensing is its connection to the open source
> development method. If you disagree, then you disagree with some of the
> ideas underlying open source, which is not the same as making a case against
> the logic of the dual-licensing model.

The dual-licensing requires a market need for *closed* source. How can 
this be in line with the open source ideals?

(Please note I'm not at all against practising the dual-licensing model, 
given the current state of affairs.)


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3