6 ms·

Not sure if you mean for profit and proprietary or just making money in general. For some reason though a lot of people think you can't sell GPL'd software whic

by jcase 13y ago

Not sure if you mean for profit and proprietary or just making money in general. For some reason though a lot of people think you can't sell GPL'd software which you absolutely can.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Why would I pay for a copy of some GPL software when I could just wait for someone else to buy it and then get it from them for free?
- nisa 13y ago
  Derivates of GPL software are also GPL licenced. If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. The possibility of a dual licence gives the creator a compensation because he waives the rights the GPL gives him for you. Also: Support contracts. A lot of poeple live in the support ecosystem and adapt GPL/BSD software for costumers.
  - GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
    > If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. Fixed: If you use ANY GPL code in your product you have to provide the source.(There are of course exeptions eg LGPL) Also it isn't simply derivative work that that can be forced to re-license under the GPLv3. If FreeBSD had elected to adopt a GPLv3 compiler and distribute the source(as they do with the compiler) then the FreeBSD kernel itself would become subject to it. In fact, it isn't just gcc which has this restriction. Any GPL v3 code isn't allowed in base. Further reading: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.shtml http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.sh...
    - TylerE 13y ago
      If you're going to be a pedant, get it right. You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy)
      - rickjames28 13y ago
        You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy) Actually, that's a common, but wrong interpretation. The whole work becomes GPL, but the code that links to GPL code doesn't have to be GPL.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It has to be "GPL-compatible" though, which means whoever you give it to can convert it to the GPL by adding the extra conditions of the GPL to it.
    - nly 13y ago
      Nonsense. Just putting GCC source code in to the BSD repository wouldn't magically spread the requirement that the entire project become GPL any more than keeping a copy on my hard drive requires I give the FSF the complete contents of my /home directory. What matters is the dependency/linkage. The GCC 'runtime library exception' firewalls all 'target code' from the GPLv3, and even allows proprietary preprocessors, linkers and assemblers (but nothing that would involve modifying GCC to split what it does in to more granular stages)
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        In particular, Apple shipped GCC with Darwin.
- belorn 13y ago
  #1 Support? #2 Hosting/cloudiness? #3 Administration? #4 Custom adaptation? #5 Privileged early access to updates/content files? All those different strategies has been used to "sell" GPL software. Even the last one has been used, even if their customers could repackage the update and redistribute it to non-paying customers.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    All of them fail for desktop software, this is why FOSS as business works only for developer tools or SaaS software.
    - teddyh 13y ago
      Perhaps. But even if no-one would pay money for a direct software download/package, this does not preclude sponsorship of companies to free software projects they wish to be more developed. Indeed, there are many such large projects.
    - gillianseed 13y ago
      Not necessarily. For example there's the model used by the x264 project (and upcoming x265 project), they offer the encoder as free software under GPL but they also sell licences for using it in proprietary projects and apparnetly they (the developers) make good money this way. Then there's the recent example of Openshot, a GPL licenced video editor where the author went to kickstarter to gain funding for improving it greatly, the goal was $20.000 and it reached $45,028. I see a combination of these models as a future popular way of making money out of your open source efforts.
      - pjmlp 13y ago
        Your first example is a developer tool, as mentioned by me. Kickstarter projects is USA specific, and it seldom works if you need a steady income of money.
        gillianseed 13y ago
- nly 13y ago
  Most commercial GPL software outfits make their money by dual-licensing, or charging for support or bespoke add-ons.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    I pointed this out elsewhere, but dual-licensing isn't selling GPL software; it's more like giving away proprietary software under the GPL.
wes-exp 13y ago
You can sell GPL software. It's just really hard to actually make money :-P
- kkowalczyk 13y ago
  You can put a price on GPL software. What you shouldn't do is to hope that anyone will pay you. The first person who pays can offer exactly the same thing for $0. It's impossible to convince anyone that they should pay you even $1 if exactly the same thing is available for $0 from somewhere else. The ability to charge for GPL software is purely theoretical. In practice, you can't.
  - krrrh 13y ago
    Not true. Just see MySQL for one example. Before Oracle bought MySQL AB (for $1 billion) their revenues on commercial support for their largely GPLv2 software was in the tens of millions. The same may already be true for Monty Program AB who provide commercial support for MariaDB. The closer you get to infrastructure, the more being open source is a competitive advantage.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      This is not the case with most open source software. Actually the majority of corporations are leechers, using it as "free beer", only paying back if they really have to, as many corporations don't use software without support contracts. Or happen to have some FOSS followers taking business decisions. Otherwise, I can tell you from my experience working on Fortune 500 consulting projects, very seldom is any money or contribution given back.
    - joesb 13y ago
      I thought MySQL AB has dual licensing model and that business can pay for commercial non-GPL MySQL.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    It's impossible to convince anyone that they should pay you even $1 if exactly the same thing is available for $0 from somewhere else. Radiohead's In Rainbows, the Humble Bundles and other pay-what-you-want sales disprove that statement. All had average purchase prices well above the minimum. (That doesn't mean such a model is very profitable compared to fixed prices, of course.) Even in a purely self-interested point of view, there are reasons for paying (e.g. keeping development active).

by jcase 13y ago

Not sure if you mean for profit and proprietary or just making money in general. For some reason though a lot of people think you can't sell GPL'd software which you absolutely can.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

Why would I pay for a copy of some GPL software when I could just wait for someone else to buy it and then get it from them for free?

nisa 13y ago
Derivates of GPL software are also GPL licenced. If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. The possibility of a dual licence gives the creator a compensation because he waives the rights the GPL gives him for you. Also: Support contracts. A lot of poeple live in the support ecosystem and adapt GPL/BSD software for costumers.
- GalacticDomin8r 13y ago
  > If you use a lot of GPL code in your product you have to provide the source. Fixed: If you use ANY GPL code in your product you have to provide the source.(There are of course exeptions eg LGPL) Also it isn't simply derivative work that that can be forced to re-license under the GPLv3. If FreeBSD had elected to adopt a GPLv3 compiler and distribute the source(as they do with the compiler) then the FreeBSD kernel itself would become subject to it. In fact, it isn't just gcc which has this restriction. Any GPL v3 code isn't allowed in base. Further reading: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.shtml http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.sh...
  - TylerE 13y ago
    If you're going to be a pedant, get it right. You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy)
    - rickjames28 13y ago
      You have to license any code that links with GPL code under the GPL. This does not prevent you from dual-licensing your own portion of the code base, or shipping non-GPL, non-linked code as part of the same product (Although in the case of things like DLL plugins it gets a bit hazy) Actually, that's a common, but wrong interpretation. The whole work becomes GPL, but the code that links to GPL code doesn't have to be GPL.
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It has to be "GPL-compatible" though, which means whoever you give it to can convert it to the GPL by adding the extra conditions of the GPL to it.
  - nly 13y ago
    Nonsense. Just putting GCC source code in to the BSD repository wouldn't magically spread the requirement that the entire project become GPL any more than keeping a copy on my hard drive requires I give the FSF the complete contents of my /home directory. What matters is the dependency/linkage. The GCC 'runtime library exception' firewalls all 'target code' from the GPLv3, and even allows proprietary preprocessors, linkers and assemblers (but nothing that would involve modifying GCC to split what it does in to more granular stages)
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      In particular, Apple shipped GCC with Darwin.
belorn 13y ago
#1 Support? #2 Hosting/cloudiness? #3 Administration? #4 Custom adaptation? #5 Privileged early access to updates/content files? All those different strategies has been used to "sell" GPL software. Even the last one has been used, even if their customers could repackage the update and redistribute it to non-paying customers.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  All of them fail for desktop software, this is why FOSS as business works only for developer tools or SaaS software.
  - teddyh 13y ago
    Perhaps. But even if no-one would pay money for a direct software download/package, this does not preclude sponsorship of companies to free software projects they wish to be more developed. Indeed, there are many such large projects.
  - gillianseed 13y ago
    Not necessarily. For example there's the model used by the x264 project (and upcoming x265 project), they offer the encoder as free software under GPL but they also sell licences for using it in proprietary projects and apparnetly they (the developers) make good money this way. Then there's the recent example of Openshot, a GPL licenced video editor where the author went to kickstarter to gain funding for improving it greatly, the goal was $20.000 and it reached $45,028. I see a combination of these models as a future popular way of making money out of your open source efforts.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Your first example is a developer tool, as mentioned by me. Kickstarter projects is USA specific, and it seldom works if you need a steady income of money.
      - gillianseed 13y ago
nly 13y ago
Most commercial GPL software outfits make their money by dual-licensing, or charging for support or bespoke add-ons.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  I pointed this out elsewhere, but dual-licensing isn't selling GPL software; it's more like giving away proprietary software under the GPL.

wes-exp 13y ago

You can sell GPL software. It's just really hard to actually make money :-P

kkowalczyk 13y ago
You can put a price on GPL software. What you shouldn't do is to hope that anyone will pay you. The first person who pays can offer exactly the same thing for $0. It's impossible to convince anyone that they should pay you even $1 if exactly the same thing is available for $0 from somewhere else. The ability to charge for GPL software is purely theoretical. In practice, you can't.
- krrrh 13y ago
  Not true. Just see MySQL for one example. Before Oracle bought MySQL AB (for $1 billion) their revenues on commercial support for their largely GPLv2 software was in the tens of millions. The same may already be true for Monty Program AB who provide commercial support for MariaDB. The closer you get to infrastructure, the more being open source is a competitive advantage.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    This is not the case with most open source software. Actually the majority of corporations are leechers, using it as "free beer", only paying back if they really have to, as many corporations don't use software without support contracts. Or happen to have some FOSS followers taking business decisions. Otherwise, I can tell you from my experience working on Fortune 500 consulting projects, very seldom is any money or contribution given back.
  - joesb 13y ago
    I thought MySQL AB has dual licensing model and that business can pay for commercial non-GPL MySQL.
- icebraining 13y ago
  It's impossible to convince anyone that they should pay you even $1 if exactly the same thing is available for $0 from somewhere else. Radiohead's In Rainbows, the Humble Bundles and other pay-what-you-want sales disprove that statement. All had average purchase prices well above the minimum. (That doesn't mean such a model is very profitable compared to fixed prices, of course.) Even in a purely self-interested point of view, there are reasons for paying (e.g. keeping development active).