Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

The "Dual-Licensing" Trap

Author:Brett Glass
Posted:8/23/2000; 3:33:56 PM
Topic:Next survey: Are you an open source developer?
Msg #:20011 (In response to 20007)
Prev/Next:20010 / 20012

Not entirely correct. GPL does not and can not "impose" constraints on the original copyright holder, because it is not possible to constrain the original copyright holder. Licenses only constrain others.

You can multi-license, putting out one version in GPL and holding another back. You can work on each of those forks seperately, or perhaps just release something like, say, a 5-year-old game called Doom (from iD software).

Dual licensing is a trap which ultimately hurts the original developer very badly -- especially if he thinks he is going to be able to make money that way.

Let me explain why. Dual licensing does not work because only a very un-savvy businessman would buy a license to use the code when there's a GPLed version available. This is true for two reasons.

First, the existence of the GPLed version of the code effectively reduces the market value of its functionality to zero. Anyone can get that functionality for free. Thus, if a commercial developer pays money to license GPLed code, s/he is paying for something which has no market value to end users. This puts the commercial developer who buys a license to use the code "in the hole" from the start. This is precisely the sort of sabotage contemplated by Stallman, author of the GPL.

Second, the GPL provides for a few "loopholes" and workarounds which allow the author's potential licensees to use the code without licensing it. (For example, Metrowerks's development environments invoke GCC, the GNU C Compiler, as a separate program.) So, in many cases, the potential licensees can find ways to avoid licensing the code for money, and the author loses.

Also, if you accept even one GPLed contribution from an outside source, your entire product is contaminated by the GPL. This means that you cannot enjoy the benefits of outside input without getting a release from every contributor or giving up on dual licensing.

On the other hand, if you do NOT accept GPLed contributions, or if you require a release, anti-business zealots (of whom there are many in the GPL camp) can take the GPLed version and run with it, splitting off a new development project and developing a product that competes with the version you want to license for money. Again, you lose.

If you are interested in making money from code, dual licensing is not the answer. Rather, it's a trap -- one which Stallman, Perens, and Raymond have successfully foisted on many developers to their peril.

--Brett Glass

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:11 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.