

On Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL - bensummers
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

======
axod
I don't know if this is a unique view, but I'll put it out there:

I don't use MySQL because it's open source. I couldn't care less if it's open
source or not. I use it because it's free, in active development, and pretty
much works well in the main.

I expect the fact it's open source means that the odd bug gets fixed that
wouldn't otherwise get fixed, simply because there are more eyes looking at
code (Although I do wonder how many people actively go through open source
projects looking at code).

Open source is sort of nice n'all, but I don't think it's the reason things
are successful or not. If MySQL changed to closed source I don't think it'd
change much apart from for open source zealots like the author.

~~~
JulianMorrison
The fact it's open source means you can't get the rug yanked out from under
you by the copyright owner.

\- They can't suddenly change their mind and make the next version for-pay.

\- They can't impose pushy conditions, Bitkeeper style.

\- They can't cease development, while sitting on the copyright.

\- And if they go bankrupt the code won't be left in legal limbo.

~~~
axod
The worst thing for me about open source is the mass of abandoned projects no
one cares about any more.

Don't get me wrong, I like open source and use it a ton, but it's not the only
way.

As I say, IMHO the main thing is that someone is behind the software that
cares.

~~~
lutorm
You really think there are fewer abandoned close-source projects? It's just
that you never even knew they existed, unlike the open-source projects.
Classic selection bias.

------
lutorm
This only makes sense for libraries, it seems, because it relies on embedding.

For end-user software, I wonder if you could do the opposite, charge _extra_
for a GPL version of the software? I know there would be times where I'd pay
more for that.

The vendor would of course run the risk that I'd then start shrink-wrapping
and selling it, so maybe you'd have to modify the license slightly to include
distribution only as patches, not full source code. That way people could
share code but would still need to buy initial access from the vendor.

Edit: The responses miss my point: I know it won't be copyleft / totally free
software with such restrictions. But if such restrictions would convince
someone to change distribution terms from shrink-wrap to partially open-
source, I think many of the strongest reasons for advocating free software
would be accommodated. That is, you _could_ modify the printer driver (or
whatever RMS's initial reason was).

Or if Photoshop doesn't have the functionality you want, you can pay extra to
get the source and patch it. And you could even share such improvements with
other users, provided they have the full source.

~~~
tptacek
No, you can't charge extra for a copyleft-licensed version of software. Any
licensing change you made to try to do that would make you not copyleft.

~~~
mseebach
As I understand it, you can in fact charge for GPL software.

<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>

What you can't do, is to refuse to provide sources and to prevent your
customer to stick that source on GitHub for everyone to do whatever they like
with (including selling).

~~~
statictype
You can charge for GPL software but as I understand it, you can't charge
something extra for the privilege of a GPL'd version of your program.

If you structured your licensing in such a way as to require this, it probably
violates the GPL.

~~~
lutorm
If you are the _copyright holder_ , you absolutely can. That's the entire
point of the article. As a _user_ , you can't change the licensing terms.

~~~
statictype
The article's position is in the opposite way. Charging extra for the right to
use the software under a non-free license.

~~~
lutorm
I just meant that the point of the article rests on the fact that the
copyright holders can change the distribution terms whichever way they want.
The "other" licenses won't be GPL, of course, but there's nothing preventing
them from releasing under two licenses.

------
10ren
I've always called this "dual licensing" and I'm very surprised that Stallman
is in favour of it. I seem to remember him being against it. The arguments he
uses now make sense, though they also made sense in the past.

------
jbellis
So proprietary is bad, unless someone pays a GPL IP owner for it? Seriously?

Come on rms, it wouldn't kill you to admit that sometimes non-GPL licenses are
ok.

~~~
brlewis
The central point of the article is that non-GPL licenses are not wrong, and a
GPL exception is no worse than a non-GPL license. I think this point is very
clearly spelled out.

------
Hoff
Standard GPL license discussions in three, two, one...

Nothing to see. Move along.

~~~
Hoff
Am I _wrong_? This is the same series of overlapping monologues that arises
each time the subject of GPL licensing is broached.

Each time time this horse gets dragged out of its casket.

Same stuff. Same blather.

License your package the way you want, and move on.

------
ErrantX
I got this far:

 _If someone buys an exception to embed a program in a larger proprietary
program, he's doing something wrong (namely, making proprietary software).
Does it follow that the developer that sold the exception is doing something
wrong too?_

Then shrugged and kinda gave up. :) Initially some great points were made but
after that paragraph it seemed to turn more into a postulation that GNU GPL
was more ethical (his words) than other licenses.

~~~
shin_lao
I agree. What matters is to write great software, how you finance it is
irrelevant to the end user.

Open source makes reverse engineering easier. Users don't care about reverse
engineering your software. They care about great software.

My point of view is that great software comes from great engineers, not from a
license.

~~~
davidw
> I agree. What matters is to write great software, how you finance it is
> irrelevant to the end user.

Well, yes and no. If, for instance, you have proprietary software, and your
users depend on it and have no source code, and you go out of business, they
are up a creek. Or, if you have released some open source software that people
like and find useful, and you can't find a way to fund more than sporadic
development, that may be a problem too: in an ideal world you'd spend more
time working on it.

~~~
axod
Come on. That's a silly theoritical argument.

Dump 10MB of source code on the users and see if they bother to fix it or just
move on to something else.

If your customers are also programmers who don't mind going through other
peoples code, then possibly.

~~~
davidw
The first scenario happens quite regularly.

As for the second scenario, it happens quite often too, just that it's less
visible: the software is still there, people use it, just that it doesn't get
all the work it could because the main developer(s) have to make ends meet in
other ways.

Nothing 'theoretical' about it, it's something many open source developers
face, and is, in part, why there's such a big hullabaloo around Mysql: Monty
doesn't think it's possible to pay for (enough?) developers if they don't sell
GPL exceptions. Of course he's angling to get back control of the project too,
for free, using the European Union as his hit man, but that's another topic.
In any case, paying for open source development is absolutely not a solved
problem.

