Dual licensing

[Chris F Clark]

>>>>I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused.  How can be it open source, and yet
>>>>if used commercially, the authors get a cut?
>>>
>>>The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free
>>>software philosophy.> 
...
>I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software in 
>the view on many people (SDC, UUU, Alladin...) Putting the authors out 
>of the loop is silly and unfair.

It may be "wrong" (silly, unjfair, etc.) but it *is* the definition of
both free software and open source.  The *intent* is to take the
author out of the loop.  Once your software is "free" or "open
source", you don't "own" it any more.  It "belongs" to its users.

You are not the first to propose some form of limited sharing, with
some amount of ability to return profits to the author when users
themselves are making profits.  However, each and every time, such
ideas have floundered on this basic principle--the principle that the
author cannot restrict(*) the end users rights to use and redistribute
the software for any purpose once they have obtained a copy.  (*Some
forms of restriction are allowed if they facilitate the principle of
non-restriction, e.g. the GPL requiring that if you distribute a
non-human readable form, you must also desribute a human readable
form.)

The ability to enforce a limited sharing is considered a "monopoly
rent".  You as the author are inherently a monopoly, as you (perhaps a
collective you if the software was written by a group) are "the
author" and conceptually no one else can be that.  Thus, any ability
you have to control the software puts you in the position of a
controlling monopoly.  If that control prohibits others from using the
software without returning something to you, then what those users
must return to you is a "monopoly rent".  And if that cotrol (either
through a monopoly rent) or through some other mechanism prevents some
group of users from using (or redistributing to whoever they want) the
software after they have obtained it, then it makes the software
non-open source. (And the key point is that the users must be able to
redistibute the software to anyone, including users who the original
author would not give the software to and that those redistributed to
users must have equal rights even if the original author would not
have given them such rights and also cannot be restricted in their use
or redistribution.)

If you want to make a profit from selling open source software, you
are free to attempt to do so, and there appear to be mechanisms to do
so.  However, you can't do it through a "monopoly rent" system and
call it "open source".  The closest one can come to collecting a
monopoly rent is finding some way to make oneself the preferred
provider of the software and collecting such rents on the "first
sale"--that is sometimes called "selling the brand".

My company has developed a strategy for doing just that, and we'll see
over time whether it is successful.  However, we recognize that in
doing so, our ability to extract income form the software is only
proportional to the extra value we continue to add (or at least that
our customers perceive we add).  The fact that some form of our
software is open source means that there will always be the threat
that users who don't perceive the value we add can find a way to get
the software for a lower cost than what we charge, so there will
always be a downward force on our prices that we will have to
compensate for by adding the perceived value.

However, we can't add that value through a license clause that
requires payment under some conditions.  That simply makes the
software not "open source".  Violating a key part of open source as I
tried to explain above.  Other forms of limited sharing may be good,
right, correct, laudable, etc.  However, the definition of open source
is that the author is "out of the loop" once the software is obtained
by the users and it is the users that have control.

No amount of arguing will ever change that. There are very smart
people involved in the open source movement and they understand that
principle and what it entails and have chosen to accept it.

And while you may not think that some other form of limited sharing
does not hurt the "free software philosophy", they will never agree,
because they consider the end user's rights (even if the end user is
the "evil empire") to be paramount.  It is a matter of principle, and
at some level it defines the free software philosophy--which isn't as
much about "sharing" as some people think, as it is about *not being
able to restrict* sharing, which is a slightly different thing.

Excuse my long-windedness,
-Chris

*****************************************************************************
Chris Clark                    Internet   :  compres at world.std.com
Compiler Resources, Inc.       Web Site   :  http://world.std.com/~compres  
23 Bailey Rd                   voice      :  (508) 435-5016
Berlin, MA  01503  USA         fax        :  (978) 838-0263  (24 hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3