| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
This section:
Blog postings by Andrew Cowie about Open Source
and Software Development. This section is about my experiences with db4o,
an object oriented, embedded database engine which persists Java objects.
The syndication links at top left will give you a feed for the blog as a whole.
If you'd like a feed specific to this sub-category, see bottom of page.
blogs > andrew > software > db4o > free-riding
Wed, 13 Dec 2006
On the politics and economics of dual-licencing
Christof on free-loaders
In a recent thread on developer.db4o.com, several people were whining about how the GPL is too tough for them, and that they wanted db4o for free without neither the obligations of mutual software freedom nor the requirement to have to pay for a commercial licence.
Midway through, Christof Wittig, their CEO, posted a reply that I thought really captured the essence of what they are doing as a company. Here’s my favourite part:
I think most of you know that db4o is a dual-licensed product — with [the same code available in] an open source version and a commercial version. The commercial version is distributed by db4objects, a company that is for-profit and — believe it or not — we are here to make money.
If you are open source/GPL, we are. If you don’t want to comply with the GPL, we’re not open source and not free either — in this case we’re as commercial as you are, though perhaps a little bit more affordable than others. It is as simple as this.
All discussions on this topic are usually by people who want to use the free/open source versions for their commercial/closed source businesses without giving back to the community — either with code or with money. For me that’s just free-riding.
The forbearance of CEOs
It never ceases to amaze me what the CEOs go through. Running any company means endlessly answering the same questions, and I can only imagine what the clamour must be like for the CEO of an open source software company. Under that sort of constant barrage, it’s all the more impressive that someone like Christof continues to keep such an even keel. Well mostly…
Some of you use the value-approach for pricing (which we promote, too: Usually we try to capture 3-5% of your software value). Some claim, though, that a few thousand bucks [that would be db4o’s licence cost] would be 50% of their total cost. If this was right, then the entire business was only 2× a few thousand dollars. But how can this be? Even if you live in Siberia, you cannot make a living on this as a company. So you are either not saying the truth or, more likely, you exclude complementary revenue streams, e.g. from services or add-ons, that you cross-subsidize with low cost or free software. These revenue streams, though, should be included in your value approach, and then you’ll soon find yourself in the low digit ballpark with the db4o license fees.
Or you can release your own software under the GPL. Take your pick.
Why Open Source is not communism
I advise clients about Open Source, and one of the questions that inevitably comes up in the discussion about people who dual-licence their software is, “but it’s GPL! How dare they charge for it! How can they? %#@$^&!” Sadly, the people asking that question in such an arrogant and demanding tone have missed the point. Open Source is not communism! There is no obligation to contribute what you own and no one taking it from you by force, stealing it for their own benefit while justifying their actions in the Holy Name of the People.
“No,” replies the author, “It’s my property. I wrote it. I have the copyright on it, I own it. I can do whatever I like with it. I have chosen to release my code, without patent encumberment, and you can use it, but only under very strict conditions. If you’re willing to agree to those limitations and in so doing contribute to the raising up of the whole world through the apotheosis of software freedom, then you’re welcome to use their code for whatever you’d like. People and organizations who have chosen the dual-licence model to fund their enterprise then say, “Not willing to meet the terms the GPL? Then if you want a licence to use my property in your product, start forking over the cash.”
One way or the other, FOSS is about contribution. Don’t whine about why you can’t have it for nothing.
AfC
Category Specific Feeds.
Use these links for an RSS or ATOM feed limited to this category and its descendants.
Technorati Profile
