Dual licensing

April 21st, 2008

Very interesting argument, especially the last sentence “By selling commercial licenses, we are able to staff a dedicated development team to ensure continued progress, quality enhancements and first-class technical support for developers using Ext products.”

Seems to go against the usual mindset of users that want everything for free, like using an OSS project was a favor to the creator.

Categories: OS | Top Of Page | 3 Comments » |

3 Responses to “Dual licensing”

Jeremy Gray Says:

I would love to see more and more projects go dual license, as a matter of fact. The shop I’m consulting for right now and through the remainder of the year is VERY nervous about open source licenses (I know, I know, they are nervous for no good reason, but their legal team is their legal team and I can’t tell them what to do) and I’m going to have a tough time getting certain tools and libraries in place unless they can be dual-licensed so that a commercial license can be purchased to make the legal types happy.

Bruno Says:

It´s fair, and the OSS project seens to be more mature for business (and general non technical) people — useful when not only technical people are envolved.

Andres G. Aragoneses Says:

There are two problems with this:

1) That webpage keeps making the same conceptual error again and again: commercial software is not the opposite of open source software. OSS *is* commercial. The proper opposite term is ‘propietary’. (I’ve already notified this to them.)

2) GPL licenses are a boost for open source software, but some OSS companies start to realize that the only way to make other companies or customers start using open source is by using less restrictive licenses (MIT, BSD, …), for example The Gnome Project (you cannot include a library into Gnome which is not, at least, LGPL). This is a problem inside the open source software community because it prevents reusability and cooperation.

Leave a Reply