Dual licensing

[Marius Amado Alves]

> Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source
> software because somebody could undercut you.  Now your criticism is
> that what we are selling is not publically available except through us
> (or our customers if they choose to distribute it).  I presume that
> you see the shifting target.

Of course. First you explained (very well) how undercutting was not an 
issue in practice, and then you indicated that what you really sell is a 
closed part. These are the two different targets.

> This is a weird argument all the way around.  Nobody disputes that Red
> Hat is selling open source software and services.  Nobody disputes
> that they are a successful company.  What else do you need to see for
> an example of commercial open source?

Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. And mainly support (Red Hat 
Enterprise etc.) Not the open software (Fedora).

Please understand that I am not "against" any known or existing open 
source business models. And I do not dispute some work well in practice. 
I merely note that:

- you never sell open source directly, there is always some 'trick'

- one of tricks, dual-licensing, is based on the market need for closed 
source, 'against' open source ideals

I merely try to discuss these issues here in as much as they relate to 
license terms. For example: dual-licensing requires a 'viral' license; 
open source direct sale seems to discriminate and break clause 6, and 
stop being open source; etc.

And note a possible conclusion is simply: that's the way it is, business 
has 'tricks', these are the open source ones.


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