Why not GPL? ‘Cause we wanna sell our code!
I have spoken out against GPL in the past - not because we haven’t put out code under that license before - but because we want to sell our code - and non of our customers would tolerate the restrictions that it puts on them - the buyers of the code and our product.
So we have been very careful to not include even ONE library that includes pure GPL code - and we’ve used only a few (>5) LGPL libraries - which will remain sacrosanct and pure and untouched by us - forever and ever.
I’m posting this now - as John Stanforth left a comment. It was triggered by this post - where I was talking Elgg and their code - which IS GPL.
Here’s what Jophn Stanforth wrote:
Aren’t your customers typically setting up sites with your software (vs. trying to become software companies, redistributing your software with their own modifications, etc). Because, if they’re just setting up sites, even with their own modifications, then the GPL shouldn’t be an issue for them either.
So my official reply to John is:
Dude - yes some of our customers are seting up the software themselves and running it - and some are paying us to host the experience and provide them a turn-key SaaS experience. But you know what?
We got OTHER customers who are true resellers and VARs. They’re taking our software and adding something to it - whether it be their marketing expertise, p2p technology or Rolodex - but they’re licensing the code from us - and they’ll be making a pretty penny off of us and our code. And we LOVE them for it.
A network called ‘MyCreativeCommunity‘ was produced by a reseller of ours in Atlanta.
We’re negotiating and we’re almost ready to close on two others.
You see John - it will be very hard for Elgg to license their code to resellers who will be willing to go along with the restrictions of the GPL license. This is the price that Elgg pays for their user communit’s contributions - and is just part of the game.
I’m sure there are idealists out there who WON’T use PeopleAggregator because we’re not GPL - but those people are not our target customers. We don’t make money off of idealism.
We’d love to be doing business with Accenture, EDS, Organic, RazorFish, Sapient, PA Consulting and any other ad agency or web house that produces web sites, social networks or blogging plaforms. And all those resellers would be pretty pissed and go find a solution elsewhere the MOMENT I told them about my GPL code.
So we have our own unique open source model - which allows our clean room produced software to be sold in a myriad of ways - basically however the customer wants it. And we like it that way. Full flexibility.
Which ain’t GPL.
its funny but on EVERY one of your fake ass community sites you are one of the only members ? and posters ?
its funny but on EVERY one of your fake ass community sites you are one of the only members ? and posters ?
its funny but on EVERY one of your fake ass community sites you are one of the only members ? and posters ?
I’m not challenging your decision to go no-GPL, it’s your business, but you need to be careful there, Marc. You have a gift for hyperbole. There are clear reasons for GPL versus owning and controlling your own code base. I have had some dealings with two of the companies you mentioned in the quote above and GPL is not a no go zone for working with those companies. It depends on what the business partnership entails. You can’t simply paint them with a NO GPL brush.
I’m not challenging your decision to go no-GPL, it’s your business, but you need to be careful there, Marc. You have a gift for hyperbole. There are clear reasons for GPL versus owning and controlling your own code base. I have had some dealings with two of the companies you mentioned in the quote above and GPL is not a no go zone for working with those companies. It depends on what the business partnership entails. You can’t simply paint them with a NO GPL brush.
I’m not challenging your decision to go no-GPL, it’s your business, but you need to be careful there, Marc. You have a gift for hyperbole. There are clear reasons for GPL versus owning and controlling your own code base. I have had some dealings with two of the companies you mentioned in the quote above and GPL is not a no go zone for working with those companies. It depends on what the business partnership entails. You can’t simply paint them with a NO GPL brush.
Howdy Marc,
Long-time reader here… Though ultimately, you’re entitled to do as you wish with your product and your code, I do have to point out that you may working under a misconception with regards to the GPL. There are many successful companies whose products are open source under GPL and/or other open source licenses who are doing extremely well from a financial perspective.
Take MySQL for example, their product is GPL but customers and OEM/ISV’s can purchase a commercial license which effectively creates a dual-licensing model. In a nutshell, paying customers and OEMs are excempted from the viral aspects of the GPL. This occurs because MySQL owns the IP to their code much as you do.
In the case of MySQL they also have an FOSS exception which excempts other open source projects licensed under different (but approved) open source licenses from having to be, in turn, released under GPL. This helps create a productive environment for innovation and contribution while offering enterprises the comfor that they’re protected from the GPL provisions.
Please understand that I’m not a raving open source purist, my boss likes to talk about “open source capitalism” and you have the opportunity, should you desire, to take advantage of that and grow out your community of users and contributors while still being able to license a commercial version as you see fit.
This is the way we’ve been doing business at my company for the last two years and it’s worked out very well for us. Believe me when I tell you, we’ve had no customers look elsewhere just because of our license.
Some useful links:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/38172.html
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html
Howdy Marc,
Long-time reader here… Though ultimately, you’re entitled to do as you wish with your product and your code, I do have to point out that you may working under a misconception with regards to the GPL. There are many successful companies whose products are open source under GPL and/or other open source licenses who are doing extremely well from a financial perspective.
Take MySQL for example, their product is GPL but customers and OEM/ISV’s can purchase a commercial license which effectively creates a dual-licensing model. In a nutshell, paying customers and OEMs are excempted from the viral aspects of the GPL. This occurs because MySQL owns the IP to their code much as you do.
In the case of MySQL they also have an FOSS exception which excempts other open source projects licensed under different (but approved) open source licenses from having to be, in turn, released under GPL. This helps create a productive environment for innovation and contribution while offering enterprises the comfor that they’re protected from the GPL provisions.
Please understand that I’m not a raving open source purist, my boss likes to talk about “open source capitalism” and you have the opportunity, should you desire, to take advantage of that and grow out your community of users and contributors while still being able to license a commercial version as you see fit.
This is the way we’ve been doing business at my company for the last two years and it’s worked out very well for us. Believe me when I tell you, we’ve had no customers look elsewhere just because of our license.
Some useful links:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/38172.html
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html
Howdy Marc,
Long-time reader here… Though ultimately, you’re entitled to do as you wish with your product and your code, I do have to point out that you may working under a misconception with regards to the GPL. There are many successful companies whose products are open source under GPL and/or other open source licenses who are doing extremely well from a financial perspective.
Take MySQL for example, their product is GPL but customers and OEM/ISV’s can purchase a commercial license which effectively creates a dual-licensing model. In a nutshell, paying customers and OEMs are excempted from the viral aspects of the GPL. This occurs because MySQL owns the IP to their code much as you do.
In the case of MySQL they also have an FOSS exception which excempts other open source projects licensed under different (but approved) open source licenses from having to be, in turn, released under GPL. This helps create a productive environment for innovation and contribution while offering enterprises the comfor that they’re protected from the GPL provisions.
Please understand that I’m not a raving open source purist, my boss likes to talk about “open source capitalism” and you have the opportunity, should you desire, to take advantage of that and grow out your community of users and contributors while still being able to license a commercial version as you see fit.
This is the way we’ve been doing business at my company for the last two years and it’s worked out very well for us. Believe me when I tell you, we’ve had no customers look elsewhere just because of our license.
Some useful links:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/38172.html
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html
For that matter, A dual licensing approach (GPL + proprietary) can get you the best of both worlds.
For that matter, A dual licensing approach (GPL + proprietary) can get you the best of both worlds.
For that matter, A dual licensing approach (GPL + proprietary) can get you the best of both worlds.