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