Search FCW


Subscribe Now!
Table of Contents
Sprint
Business
BPM
CXOs
Columns
Columnists
Defense
E-Government
Elections 2008
Enterprise Architecture
Funding
Homeland Security
Health IT
IPv6
LOB
Management
Procurement
Privacy
Policy
Program Management
State and Local
Security
Technology
Telework
Training and Certification
Workforce

More Topics
resourcecenter
Home
Letters to the Editor
Current Issue/Download
Print/Online Archives
Editorial Calendar
researchstore
resourcecenter
Communications for Continuity Operations

Oracle Resource Center
NEW! Transforming Data Center
Managed Services
Service Oriented Architecture
Training & Simulation
Networking Communications
Security Directives and Compliance
Data Center Virtualization
Air Force ELSG Contract Guide

More >>



Latest News
ADVERTISEMENT





 

Explaining dual licensing

By John Moore
Published on August 18, 2008

Comment

Click here to comment on this article


Related story links

A starring role for open source?

Open-source myth busters

Air Force opens up to non-proprietary software

Big vendors give open source added clout


Newsletters

You might also be interested in these FCW newsletters:

Daily
Management

To learn more, click here.


Many commercial open-source vendors offer their software under a dual-licensing model: an open-source license, such as GPL, and a commercial license.

An open-source license requires all organizations that use or sell support for the software to offer free redistribution of and access to source code. They also must freely distribute modifications. On the other hand, a commercial license offers the ability to access and modify source code but lacks the distribution requirements.

For example, Compiere distributes the community edition of its enterprise software under GPL Version 2 but offers its professional edition under a commercial license. In both cases, the company provides customers with the application source code. However, with a commercial license, customers aren’t required to redistribute their modifications.

“The GPL license stipulates that any extensions added to the base GPL product also become subject to the terms of the GPL — which includes that the developer of the extension is forbidden from restricting the use, copying, modification or redistribution of that software and source code,” said John Cingari, Compiere’s chief marketing officer.

“For many customers and partners, providing their proprietary extensions back to the public is not practical,” Cingari said. “The commercial license option is preferred by these organizations because they retain control over their innovations that integrate with Compiere.”

Similarly, Alfresco provides a commercial license to customers that purchase a subscription. 

“They get all the rights of open source/GPL — view and modify the software — without the obligation of redistributing their derivative works,” said Matt Asay, vice president of business development at Alfresco. “This means they can’t redistribute our code, but we’ve yet to find any that want to.”

Such commercial licenses don’t comply with the Open Source Initiative’s open-source definition. Asay said some software companies refer to software offered under the commercial license option as source available.


upcoming event

Green Computing Summit, Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, DC
December 2 - December 3, 2008

Trusted Internet Connection and the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative, The Willard Intercontinental Hotel, Washington, DC
December 4, 2008


 

head
fcw
issue
First Name State
Last Name Zip
Title Email