Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Dual License model: Future of open source?

Filed under
OSS

I have noticed a trend developing in the business models of successful open source companies. These companies are implementing a business model that is based on dual licensing their software.

This press release provides an excellent summary of what dual licensing means.
The guiding principle behind dual licensing is "quid pro quo," or a fair exchange.

Under this model, vendors offer their products under both an open source license and a commercial license. This allows open source projects to use the software at no cost, which contributes to widespread use and testing of the software and the fast growth of a large installed user base. Companies redistributing the software as part of commercial products can also get the benefits of the open source software by purchasing a commercial license, which releases them from requirements to publish their source code. Commercially-licensed customers generate revenue for the open source vendors, which contributes to the rapid development of high-quality software.

In an recent blog post titled "Giving and Taking", Asterisk creator Mark Spencer explains why dual licensing can be a good thing for open source.

More Here




More in Tux Machines

Mir 0.8 Works On Less ABI Breakage, Touchspots, Responsiveness

While Ubuntu 14.10 on the desktop isn't using Mir by default, Mir 0.8.0 is being prepared for release by Canonical and it has a number of interesting changes. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Mozilla Wants to Save the Open Web, but is it Too Late?

Again, I think this is absolutely correct. But what it fails to recognise is that one of the key ways of making the Web medium "less free and open" is the use of legally-protected DRM. DRM is the very antithesis of openness and of sharing. And yet, sadly, as I reported back in May, Mozilla has decided to back adding DRM to the Web, starting first with video (but it won't end there...) This means Mozilla's Firefox is itself is a vector of attack against openness and sharing, and undermines its own lofty goals in the Open Web Fellows programme. Read more

Open source is starting to make a dent in proprietary software fortunes

Open source has promised to unseat proprietary competitors for decades, but the cloud may make the threat real. Read more