Re: Need advice for dual licensing
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:09:41PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Can I suggest something similar to the Aladdin model for Ghostscript -
> release the current version as "paid for, for commercial use, supported
> by us": after a year GPL it and put support into the community. If your
> code base is substantially similar from one release to the next - 1.)
> Bugs will be fixed when noticed by the wider community on the GPL
> version: if the bugs are still in your "Professional/Supported" version
> they're fixed for free, effectively. 2.) Feature requests from the GPL'd
Er. If you're taking fixes from the community, unless you're carefully
receiving specific licensing or in-writing copyright transfers, you'll be
unable to release a non-GPL version at all.
> version can be rolled into your supported version. 3.) You get free
> advertising for your pro version and kudos from the rest of the world
> by releasing slightly older code under the GPL
You don't get kudos from the world for deliberately keeping your free
version out of date.
> Be careful how you advertise/plug the paid for version: Aladdin fell out
> with the FSF because the FSF thought that the free GPL'd version
> advertised the commercial version too much.
The FSF, or anyone else, could have taken the free version and removed all of
the advertising, and their ability to do so is fundamental. If all the FSF
did was complain about it and not fix it, they wouldn't seem to be taking much
advantage of Free Software. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: