| We were recently faced with a decision: | | | | is not). In other words, if a guy is not |
| either to let a program that took us one year | | | | making money from a project why in the hell |
| to code die, simply because we do not have | | | | would he keep supporting it. An example of |
| enough time to maintain it, or make it open | | | | one such software is PuTTY (with apology to |
| source.Open source looked like a good idea | | | | Simon Tatham). Even though it is immensely |
| for while, but there was one problem. We | | | | popular, it still leaves a lot to be wished |
| wanted to keep the software under our control | | | | for. The User Interface is meager, the |
| and to be able to make money selling it | | | | documentation is of low standard and there is |
| later. And let us just be honest and admit | | | | no (customer) support. Strange for a very |
| it: we wanted monopoly over our software and | | | | popular software.Now if PuTTY was released |
| why not? It took us one year to write the | | | | under dual license, it might have been a lot |
| software, and its documentation. Yeah we | | | | different than it is now. The PuTTY company |
| believe in 'Free Software', but who works for | | | | would have expanded, hiring new people and |
| free. Free software can never be successful | | | | giving customer support. That did not happen |
| in the long run, if there is no way to make | | | | and the result is that PuTTY is not used in |
| money.Dual Licensing and GPL:Then we said to | | | | large corporations who prefer commercial |
| each other: 'Hey, RedHat and MySQL are open | | | | software with customer support and someone to |
| source. Still they make lot of money. How?" | | | | blame if anything goes wrong. For example, |
| The answer lies in the strategy known as | | | | Vandyke SecureCRT, Whitehorn Secure Terminal |
| 'Dual Licensing'. It is very simple. The Open | | | | or Celestial Telnet are some popular |
| Source company first has to copyright the | | | | commercial SSH clients.So you mean Open |
| source code, and then make it available to | | | | Source is bad? Why people go open source |
| public. Now, since the company owns the | | | | then?No. It is not. The number one advantage |
| source code copyright, it can distribute it | | | | of open source is that it can cut the |
| under two different licenses: one open source | | | | development time by as much as 50%. The other |
| and the other commercial. The open source | | | | reason why people go open source is to make |
| license in such case will almost always be | | | | sure that project will always stay alive with |
| GNU GPL (General Public License), which | | | | the help from development community (many |
| allows anybody to modify the source code, | | | | commercial software applications die in their |
| redistribute it and incorporate it into other | | | | first year). Some people participate in open |
| projects. However, there is one catch (a big, | | | | source development just to make a name for |
| and annoying catch). The restriction is that | | | | them.The bottom line is that Dual Licensing |
| any project that uses GPL'd code must also be | | | | is not as evil as many people think it is. It |
| released under the GPL license (GPL, we | | | | is the only way to go if you want to make |
| believe, works like a virus. It keeps on | | | | money from your open source project. We would |
| spreading). Which simply means (regarless of | | | | like to end this article with a line from the |
| what open source ativists tell you), you | | | | infamous 'Open letter to hobbyists' written |
| cannot sell the GPL'd code or any project | | | | by Bill Gates: "Nothing would please me more |
| that incorporates it for profit. For that | | | | than to be able to hire ten programmers and |
| purpose, you will have to offer a commercial | | | | deluge the hobby market with good |
| license.Some well known companies that use | | | | software."DISCLAIMER: All information given |
| Dual Licensing are: RedHat Inc, MySQL, AB., | | | | in this article is provided on 'AS IS' basis. |
| Sleepycat among many others. These companies | | | | The author's do not assume any responsibility |
| one hand attracts people and developers who | | | | for any consequences and do not swear that |
| want to move the Open Source movement, and on | | | | the information given in this article is |
| the other, they want to make some serious | | | | accurate. This article is not affiliated with |
| money with dual licensing.Let us look at an | | | | any organization. |
| example: a guy was creating a commercial | | | | |
| database application that was intended to | | | | This article can be distributed and |
| bring him some cash. He used MySQL database | | | | redistributed as long as Author's names are |
| at the backend, thinking it was free. He | | | | not changed and the original text remains |
| later found out that he violated the GPL | | | | intact.Ali Mansoor () has written several |
| license that MySQL uses. Anybody is | | | | famous commercial applications. |
| restricted from distributing an application | | | | |
| that uses GPL in modified or unmodified form | | | | Umer Mansoor (umer.) spends most of his time |
| unless the whole project is licensed under | | | | programming or thinking about money making |
| GPL. So that guy was left with no choice, but | | | | schemes. He is inspired by his Dad, God, |
| to buy commercial licenses (based on per | | | | Microsoft, and more recently, Google. Visit |
| copy) from MySQL, AB.Is Dual Licensing | | | | his open source project page at: from the |
| Evil?Yes. But there is nothing wrong with it. | | | | authors: |
| If no product revenues are coming in, the | | | | |
| project will eventually die or will always be | | | | No we are not nerds or geeks and we define |
| in a very bad shape (a lot of open source | | | | FREE as in 'free beer', not as in 'free |
| evangelists might try to contradict us and | | | | speech'. Cheers.. |
| compare open source with religion, which it | | | | |