Subject: Re: Dual licensing
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 07 Jun 2004 08:13:15 -0400

Marius Amado Alves <amado.alves@netcabo.pt> writes:

> Again on words. It seems what you sell is not "open" after all,
> because you "have not contributed back yet". Your selling the
> future. That's a fine model, but again, what you sell, *when* you sell
> it, is not open.

Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source
software because somebody could undercut you.  Now your criticism is
that what we are selling is not publically available except through us
(or our customers if they choose to distribute it).  I presume that
you see the shifting target.  If your point is that there exists
something which can be described as open source and which can not be
sold, I concede.  The same is obviously true of proprietary software.

This is a weird argument all the way around.  Nobody disputes that Red
Hat is selling open source software and services.  Nobody disputes
that they are a successful company.  What else do you need to see for
an example of commercial open source?

Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3