On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aklists@mixdown.ca">aklists@mixdown.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Monday, July 26, 2010 01:15:02 pm Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:<br>
> Even large venture capital funded companies (e.g. Alfresco) released their<br>
> product under a dual license (proprietary and GPL), then say that if time<br>
> goes back, they would<br>
> have picked another license, and that the GPL is not a good license for<br>
> companies.<br>
<br>
</div>Do you have any links to this effect? I don't doubt it, but I'd like to read<br>
more about it.<br></blockquote><div><br>Here is Matt Asay, who used to write a blog on CNET on Open Source,<br>and was an executive at Alfresco (an Open Source dual licensed Java<br>Enterprise Content Management system). <br>
<br>Alfresco relicensed as GPL here<br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/Open-source-Alfresco-shifts-to-GPL/2100-7344_3-6161579.html">http://news.cnet.com/Open-source-Alfresco-shifts-to-GPL/2100-7344_3-6161579.html</a><br><br>
He went from this:<br><a href="http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9929032-16.html">http://www.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9929032-16.html</a><br><br>To this:<br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10229817-16.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10229817-16.html</a><br>
<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10222346-16.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10222346-16.html</a><br><br>Some further reading:<br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10155463-16.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10155463-16.html</a><br>
<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10286964-16.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10286964-16.html</a><br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10319560-16.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10319560-16.html</a><br>
<br>Asay has left Alfresco, and is now with Canonical,
the Ubuntu company.<br><br>There is also Brian Ackers who was on MySQL team, and founded Drizzle<br>(a web optimized modernized pluggable variant)<br> <a href="http://krow.livejournal.com/684068.html">http://krow.livejournal.com/684068.html</a><br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> All of that time, the GPL helped make their code base and project popular<br>
> and successful. But then when they take that success for granted, they<br>
> think of what Apple has done with NetBSD, and they want to be able to<br>
> fully commercialize and make proprietary what was open for example, or<br>
> close off sections of their code.<br>
<br>
</div>Apple would have had *no* problem with a GPL'd kernel. Their magic isn't in<br>
what they've added to the kernel, it's in userspace, under their closed<br>
source.<br></blockquote><div><br>True. <br><br>And many other companies do not care that Linux is GPL, they use<br>it for their proprietary stuff (e.g. routers, cell phones, ...etc.). <br><br>Their stuff would be in user space, and that is allowed by all interpretations<br>
of the GPL that I know. Companies sell proprietary stuff (Oracle, DB/2) that<br>runs in user space. The GPL conflicts for the kernel almost always are limited<br>to drivers.<br><br>But when you move to stuff that is interpreted and shares process space (e.g.<br>
Wordpress or Drupal interpreted via PHP which runs inside Apache), things<br>get more interesting. Is your module or theme "derived work"? <br><br>I explained my opinion on the legal aspect of it earlier in this thread, and also <br>
about the pragmatic aspect of it.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I don't really buy into the "developers need a way to make money so they don't<br>
have to continuously work" because the nature of their industry is the same as<br>
that of many others; you perform work, you get paid for said work. The only<br>
way I really see to getting out of that "hours for dollars" exchange is to<br>
sell something over and over again. If you're "only" a developer then the<br>
only thing you have to sell is your ability to code.<br>
<br>
It's difficult to sell something you're giving the code away for, because that's<br>
"all" the thing is -- the code. </blockquote><div><br>Then don't give it away? And don't write extensions to GPL software then complain<br>about the license ...<br><br>If you are in an ecosystem, there is a lot that you get that is partially facilitated<br>
by the GPL, such as a large community, visibility, marketing, clients, ...etc.<br><br>When you ride that wave, you play by the rules and give back your extensions<br>under the same license.<br><br>Otherwise, write it from scratch under a proprietary license and then sell it any way you want.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">You need to package it into something that<br>
has greater value than the binary itself; that's of course where the<br>
maintenance or service contracts come into play, same with training and so on.<br>
But what kind of developer wants to do that? The developer wants to code.<br></blockquote><div><br>I used to think like that, and even tried it for a while.<br><br>I found that going to services is best, and freeing the software. <br>
<br>See my post earlier in this thread.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> Use due diligence and common sense, as well as business acumen and legal<br>
> advice. That is all.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't think many businessmen particularly care about the software license;<br>
they are too busy selling the value. Even if someone takes the code and runs,<br>
you're still selling the service, the expertise, etc. Sure, you will lose<br>
some sales, but the truly price-conscious were probably never really strong<br>
customers to begin with.<br></blockquote><div><br>I agree that business people sell value, but they do care about the
license too.<br><br>Why is there such a thing as the BSA then? Why do they police proprietary software<br>usage (pirated or borrowed?)<br><br>Why do we see lawsuits where due diligence was not done for copyright?<br><br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> And now, let us go back to "how should FOSS developers put food on the<br>
> table".<br>
><br>
> The proper answer is long and has been hashed and rehashed before, but let<br>
> me respond with a counter argument: how does a non-FOSS developer who does<br>
> not operate their own business put food on the table"? The rights to what<br>
> he writes has been taken over by the corporation he works for, and he can<br>
> be laid off any time because of market conditions, company faltering, CEO<br>
> embezzling, ...etc. ? What assurance does he have if he gets sick after he<br>
> is laid off?<br>
<br>
</div>I believe you hit the nail on the head. You need to sell something worth<br>
selling, and if you aren't willing to make a business out of it (and hire or<br>
become a business manager), then you're going to be trading hours for dollars.<br>
I don't think there's a way around it.<br>
<br>
License has almost nothing to do with the dilemma.<br></blockquote></div>-- <br>Khalid M. Baheyeldin<br><a href="http://2bits.com">2bits.com</a>, Inc.<br><a href="http://2bits.com">http://2bits.com</a><br>Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.<br>
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. -- Edsger W.Dijkstra<br>Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. -- Leonardo da Vinci<br>