Subject: Re: Dual licensing
From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 08:14:04 -0400

If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are
similar in most respects  - - except one distributed as a proprietary
product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other through
open source dual -licensing - - the program that should do better is the
latter, not because it has a "closed source" counterpart, but because of the
benefits that follow from the open source version.  No doubt there may be
exceptions in practice (a project may not be managed carefully or there may
be problems with free-riding), but, in the main, the dual licensing model
will do better than the closed source proprietary model; hence, the
significant feature of dual-licensing is its connection to the open source
development method. If you disagree, then you disagree with some of the
ideas underlying open source, which is not the same as making a case against
the logic of the dual-licensing model.

- Rod

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marius Amado Alves" <>
To: "OSI license discussion" <>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Dual licensing

> Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> > I agree with the point that the creative spark is not communitarian.  My
> > point  -- if we are to use Eric Raymond's book as an example (see
> > busness model "8 Free the Software, Sell the Brand") -- is that dual
> > licensing IS an authentic open source model.
> This is just words, but anyway: dual-licensing involves a closed source
> license as much as an open one; in business terms, even more, because
> that's where the money is. So dual-licensing is really less an "open
> source model" than a "closed" one. I'd really like to be shown any
> essential flaw in this reasoning. But as I said, it's just words,
> academic, not important, not pressing, don't waiste your time. Thanks.
> --
> license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at