208:
Standard
Edition (MySQL Standard Edition Subscription) and MySQL Cluster CGE (MySQL Cluster Carrier Grade Edition Subscription). The other editions, such as the MySQL Classic Edition or MySQL Community Edition, are free to use with some restrictions. For instance, the MySQL Community Edition is a freely downloadable version, available under the GPL license and is supported by a community of open source developers.
264:
on top of it - then that is much easier because there's less risk that you will mess up the whole product. But something great can emerge out of many tiny-looking contributions. It's analogous to how, in economic development, microloans can have such a huge impact - each entry is minimal, but when you multiply it by the number of people who are involved, it grows massive. It starts getting a momentum of its own.
237:
property such as patents and trademarks... Typically, the free open source form is provided under a reciprocal license like the GPL to drive adoption but stall possible competitors. Paid-for versions of the software are then provided under a commercial license like traditional software vendors do. This is also known as the dual-license strategy of commercial open source.
106:
restrictive license. Because the company with the official code is not the copyright holder of the additional code, they may not legally include this new work in their more restrictively licensed version. Companies may require outside developers agree to a contributor license agreement before accepting their work in the official code-base and source code repositories.
98:, thus requiring any derived work to be released under the same license. The copyright holder of the software then typically provides the free version of the software at little or no cost, and profits by selling proprietary licenses to commercial operations looking to incorporate the software into their own business. This model can be compared to
587:
AGPLv3 makes that generally easy to accomplish as the original copyright author has the rights to make a commercial license possible but nobody who receives the sourcecode itself through the APLv3 inherits that right. I am not sure if that was the intended use of the license, but that's at least what it's definitely being used for now.
236:
Single-vendor commercial open source firms build their business around an open source software project that they fully control, typically by having developed the software and never having shared control with third parties. This is done by owning the full copyright to the code and related intellectual
128:
Such licensing allows the holder to offer customizations and early releases, generate other derivative works or grant rights to third parties to redistribute proprietary versions all while offering everyone a free version of the software. Sharing the package as copyleft free software can benefit the
263:
The depth of the contributions varies by product and situation. The deeper you go into the core of the database engine, the more difficult it is for somebody to contribute because it takes five years to learn. If you build something on the outskirts of the kernel - some tool or function that you add
557:
Viral property stimulates proliferation of licenses and contributes to the "GPL-enforced nightmare" -- a situation when many other licenses are logically incompatible with the GPL and make life unnecessary difficult for developers working in the Linux environment (KDE is a good example here, Python
586:
The AGPLv3 was a terrible success, especially among the startup community that found the perfect base license to make dual licensing with a commercial license feasible. MongoDB, RethinkDB, OpenERP, SugarCRM as well as WURFL all now utilize the AGPLv3 as a vehicle for dual commercial licensing. The
207:
Description on one specific example to illustrate multi-licensing: Oracle MySQL comes in various editions: MySQL Enterprise
Edition is a commercial edition, hence to be purchased. The license is only offered as a subscription, named MySQL Enterprise Edition Subscription. The same applies for MySQL
506:
Multi-licensing is also used by distributors of non-free software. Sometimes this is done to proprietary software to segregate a market. By splitting customers into multiple categories such as home users, professional users, and academic users, copyright holders can set different prices for each
57:
When software is multi-licensed, recipients can typically choose the terms under which they want to use or distribute the software, but the simple presence of multiple licenses in a software package or library does not necessarily indicate that the recipient can freely choose one or the other. In
282:
As such, it needs to be aligned with other business activities. Governance models of dual-licensed OSS editions may therefore display a tendency towards commercial bias. To prevent the community from being provoked or alienated it may therefore seem imperative to balance commercial inclinations
411:
Reasonable supplementary approach of differentiation to utilize and enhance commercially vested interests in SugarCRM’s product platform. This is 1) to strengthen the firm’s sales channels through a co-evolution of capabilities with partners, and to 2) stimulate demand driven customization and
105:
Since in most cases, only the copyright holder can change the licensing terms of a software, multi licensing is mostly used by companies that wholly own the software which they are licensing. Confusion may arise when a person outside the company creates additional source code, using the less
141:
marketing or modifications that are made available as stipulated by a copyleft license. However, a copyright holder's commitment to elude copyleft provisions and advertise proprietary redistributions risks losing confidence and support from free software users.
62:
the accompanied licenses apply at the same time. The applicability of the different licenses has to be individually checked. The distributor may or may not apply a fee to either option. The two usual motivations for multi-licensing are
507:
group. However, among proprietary software companies, it is more common to release a "home edition" and a "professional edition" of a given product, which differ by the software and software features included, not just the license.
270:
Hence, the community of multi-license software as a rule includes employees of the code-owning firm, as well as strategic partners that have vested interest in the software. As Riehle notes,
272:
In single-vendor open source, almost all of the core product development work is carried out by the commercial firm, with occasional contributions from the community.
83:
business models in a commercial environment. In this scenario, one option is a proprietary software license, which allows the possibility of creating
516:
289:, this commercial open source software (COSS) business model can trigger substantial friction points, which can eventually lead to pure open source
130:
250:
is less engaged in the development of core functionality, as they typically are in conventional (pure) open source projects. As the then CEO
121:
or offers third parties the source code without copyleft provisions. Copyright holders are exercising the monopoly they're provided under
975:
451:, allowing code from differently licensed free software projects to be combined, or to provide users the preference to pick a license.
153:
479:
548:"Comparative merits of GPL, BSD and Artistic licences (Critique of Viral Nature of GPL v.2 - or In Defense of Dual Licensing Idea)"
547:
521:
181:
419:
Deficient distributional fairness (in terms of underprovided focus and priority). Perception of being kept out of the loop.
947:
738:
965:
812:
482:(LGPL) 2.1 before the latter upgraded to GPL-compatible MPL 2.0, making the tri-licensing unnecessary. Other examples are
959:
990:
491:
367:
290:
125:
in this scenario, but also use multi licensing to distinguish the rights and freedoms different recipients receive.
475:
117:
free software license and a non-free software license. The latter license typically offers users the software as
995:
459:
33:
687:
361:
338:
134:
352:". Disincentive to contribute because of lacking assurances against potentially exclusive proprietary use.
341:
for commercial editions, and 3) stronger incentives for Sugar CE users to migrate to a commercial edition.
471:
247:
313:
Precondition for dual licensing, without which the business model would not be commercially sustainable.
448:
442:
225:
91:
68:
64:
655:
FSF's
Opinion on the Apple Public Source License (APSL) - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
402:
De facto relegation to work on small-scale peripheral complements, which not need to be open source.
334:
328:
118:
84:
953:
463:
400:
Overly restrictive, lack of procedural fairness. No real influence over shared Sugar CE code base.
95:
396:
enthusiasts and vigilantes, who could interfere with a commercially guided development process.
221:
165:
146:
242:
In contrast to traditional open source projects, a single-vendor commercial open source project
543:
770:
487:
251:
47:
46:
under two or more different sets of terms and conditions. This may mean multiple different
408:
Preferential treatment of commercially affiliated community constituents and third parties
794:
467:
27:
Practice of distributing software under two or more different sets of terms and conditions
50:
or sets of licenses. Prefixes may be used to indicate the number of licenses used, e.g.
909:
413:
244:
is controlled by exactly one stakeholder with the purpose of commercially exploiting it
185:
161:
761:
Riehle, Dirk (March 2012). "The single-vendor commercial open source business model".
551:
984:
969:
138:
110:
80:
795:"Peculiarities of the Commercial Open Source business model: Case study of SugarCRM"
623:
390:
1) Need for managerial control to ensure that customers’ needs are efficiently met.
643:
495:
201:
285:
This is by no means an easy task. As Berdal demonstrated through a case study of
455:
345:
197:
169:
572:
774:
412:
development of modular complements (extensions, plug-ins etc.), 3) triggering
17:
913:
375:
349:
122:
99:
926:
654:
599:
224:
in 2010, and has later been further popularized by other scholars, such as
940:
610:
316:
Disincentive to contribute because of fears of going (partially) private.
600:
Linux News: Tech Buzz: Dual
Licensing: Having Your Cake and Eating It Too
430:
426:
286:
157:
150:
114:
88:
43:
709:
382:
principles, especially when coupled with the SugarCRM Trademark Policy.
137:. These contributions can be the support of a dedicated user community,
933:
919:
864:
366:
Not confirmed, but highly plausible: 2) brand promotion, and 3) thwart
193:
173:
960:
Should code be “dual licensed” under the GPL and a permissive license?
644:
Netscape Public
License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
276:
As Berdal notes, the governance of the open source community becomes
387:"Closed" governance practices, even restrictive by COSS standards
255:
177:
113:
packages advertising their willingness to distribute using both a
886:
483:
393:
379:
189:
843:
425:
Only a few months after these friction points were observed, a
58:
some cases, especially when the software has multiple origins,
32:
For the project page on multi-licensing
Knowledge content, see
667:"wolfSSL Embedded SSL/TLS Library | Now Supporting TLS 1.3"
666:
129:
copyright holder by receiving contributions from users and
447:
A second use of multi-licensing with free software is for
416:
which increase the overall value of the product platform.
324:
Withholding of value driving functionality from Sugar CE
109:
Multi licensing is used by the copyright holders of some
624:"Asterisk Guidelines, The contributor license agreement"
740:
The Single-Vendor
Commercial Open Source Business Model
954:
Open Source
Business Models leveraging multi-licensing
813:"The Oh-So-Practical Magic of Open-Source Innovation"
370:attempts / stifle unsolicited external code reuse.
54:
for software licensed under two different licenses.
212:
Single-vendor commercial open source business model
927:Dual Licensing: Having Your Cake and Eating It Too
788:
786:
784:
611:Dual-Licensing Open Source Business Models | Linux
733:
731:
729:
727:
948:Dual Licensing in Open Source Software Industry
293:(table adapted from Berdal, Table 3, page 75):
260:
233:
87:derived from it, while the other license is a
763:Information Systems and E-Business Management
327:1) Pre-emptive competitive advantage against
8:
145:Examples of multi-licensed software include
79:Multi-licensing is commonly done to support
934:Does dual licensing threaten free software?
941:Dual-Licensing Open Source Business Models
538:
536:
502:Market segregation in proprietary software
486:, which is dual-licensed under the GPL or
392:2) Speculative: Diminish the influence of
470:, that have used tri-licensing under the
517:Business models for open-source software
295:
532:
498:contains explicit GPL dual licensing.
360:1) Official stance: Legitimate author
573:"Licensing in a Post Copyright World"
7:
218:single-vendor commercial open source
318:Free Software purists: “Immoral”.
25:
929:" Nov 16 2004 by Philip H. Albert
571:Ronacher, Armin (July 23, 2013).
480:GNU Lesser General Public License
433:Community Edition was announced.
364:in recognition of invested work.
278:a key business management process
962:" by Software Freedom Law Center
522:Commercial use of copyleft works
42:is the practice of distributing
793:Berdal, S.R.B. (January 2013).
976:Glossary of Software Licensing
1:
346:"Crippleware" / damaged good
936:" Jul 27 2006 by Glyn Moody
887:"Perl Licensing - perl.org"
817:MIT Sloan Management Review
688:"My SQL Enterprise Edition"
357:"Powered by SugarCRM" logo
305:Opposing FOSS perspectives
1012:
972: (archived 2013-01-03)
966:Combining GPL, closed code
922:" May 1, 2002 by Don Marti
910:Dual Licensing information
476:GNU General Public License
440:
302:COSS/SugarCRM perspectives
31:
775:10.1007/s10257-010-0149-x
710:"MySQL Community Edition"
558:is a less known example).
460:Mozilla Application Suite
283:against “open” interests.
34:Knowledge:Multi-licensing
920:The Dual-Licensing Model
844:"Mozilla Code Licensing"
85:proprietary applications
339:product differentiation
246:. In this context, the
135:free software community
71:based business models.
554:on December 22, 2001.
472:Mozilla Public License
378:". Violation of basic
268:
258:said in an interview:
240:
885:The Perl Foundation.
622:Digium Incorporated.
454:Examples include the
449:license compatibility
443:License compatibility
437:License compatibility
310:Copyright assignment
248:open source community
231:According to Riehle:
204:development toolkit.
65:license compatibility
842:Mozilla Foundation.
823:(1). October 1, 2008
335:price discrimination
119:proprietary software
950:" by Mikko Välimäki
943:" by Heather Meeker
801:. Tronheim, Norway.
464:Mozilla Thunderbird
333:2) wider scope for
96:open-source license
991:Software licensing
743:, November 9, 2010
575:. lucumr.pocoo.org
226:Simon R. B. Berdal
166:Oracle Corporation
69:market segregation
544:Nikolai Bezroukov
423:
422:
280:in this context:
48:software licenses
16:(Redirected from
1003:
996:Terms of service
898:
897:
895:
893:
882:
876:
875:
873:
871:
861:
855:
854:
852:
850:
839:
833:
832:
830:
828:
809:
803:
802:
790:
779:
778:
758:
752:
751:
750:
748:
735:
722:
721:
719:
717:
706:
700:
699:
697:
695:
684:
678:
677:
675:
673:
663:
657:
652:
646:
641:
635:
634:
632:
630:
619:
613:
608:
602:
597:
591:
590:
582:
580:
568:
562:
561:
550:. Archived from
540:
488:Artistic License
296:
21:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1002:
1001:
1000:
981:
980:
906:
901:
891:
889:
884:
883:
879:
869:
867:
865:"MPL 2 Upgrade"
863:
862:
858:
848:
846:
841:
840:
836:
826:
824:
811:
810:
806:
792:
791:
782:
760:
759:
755:
746:
744:
737:
736:
725:
715:
713:
712:. Oracle, MySQL
708:
707:
703:
693:
691:
686:
685:
681:
671:
669:
665:
664:
660:
653:
649:
642:
638:
628:
626:
621:
620:
616:
609:
605:
598:
594:
578:
576:
570:
569:
565:
542:
541:
534:
530:
513:
504:
468:Mozilla Firefox
462:and previously
445:
439:
414:network effects
214:
77:
75:Business models
40:Multi-licensing
37:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1009:
1007:
999:
998:
993:
983:
982:
979:
978:
973:
963:
956:
951:
944:
937:
930:
923:
916:
905:
904:External links
902:
900:
899:
877:
856:
834:
804:
780:
753:
723:
701:
679:
658:
647:
636:
614:
603:
592:
563:
531:
529:
526:
525:
524:
519:
512:
509:
503:
500:
441:Main article:
438:
435:
421:
420:
417:
409:
405:
404:
398:
388:
384:
383:
372:
358:
354:
353:
343:
325:
321:
320:
314:
311:
307:
306:
303:
300:
299:Friction point
220:was coined by
213:
210:
76:
73:
26:
24:
18:Dual-licensing
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1008:
997:
994:
992:
989:
988:
986:
977:
974:
971:
970:archive.today
967:
964:
961:
957:
955:
952:
949:
945:
942:
938:
935:
931:
928:
924:
921:
917:
915:
911:
908:
907:
903:
892:September 17,
888:
881:
878:
866:
860:
857:
849:September 17,
845:
838:
835:
822:
818:
814:
808:
805:
800:
796:
789:
787:
785:
781:
776:
772:
768:
764:
757:
754:
742:
741:
734:
732:
730:
728:
724:
711:
705:
702:
689:
683:
680:
668:
662:
659:
656:
651:
648:
645:
640:
637:
625:
618:
615:
612:
607:
604:
601:
596:
593:
589:
588:
574:
567:
564:
560:
559:
553:
549:
545:
539:
537:
533:
527:
523:
520:
518:
515:
514:
510:
508:
501:
499:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:(GPL) 2.0 or
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
452:
450:
444:
436:
434:
432:
428:
418:
415:
410:
407:
406:
403:
399:
397:
395:
389:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
371:
369:
363:
359:
356:
355:
351:
347:
344:
342:
340:
336:
330:
326:
323:
322:
319:
315:
312:
309:
308:
304:
301:
298:
297:
294:
292:
288:
284:
279:
274:
273:
267:
265:
259:
257:
253:
249:
245:
239:
238:
232:
229:
227:
223:
219:
211:
209:
205:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:'s database,
159:
155:
152:
148:
143:
140:
139:word of mouth
136:
132:
126:
124:
120:
116:
112:
111:free software
107:
103:
101:
97:
93:
92:free software
90:
86:
82:
81:free software
74:
72:
70:
66:
61:
55:
53:
52:dual-licensed
49:
45:
41:
35:
30:
19:
890:. Retrieved
880:
868:. Retrieved
859:
847:. Retrieved
837:
825:. Retrieved
820:
816:
807:
798:
766:
762:
756:
745:, retrieved
739:
714:. Retrieved
704:
692:. Retrieved
682:
670:. Retrieved
661:
650:
639:
629:February 10,
627:. Retrieved
617:
606:
595:
585:
584:
579:November 18,
577:. Retrieved
566:
556:
555:
552:the original
505:
453:
446:
424:
401:
391:
365:
332:
317:
281:
277:
275:
271:
269:
262:
261:
252:MĂĄrten Mikos
243:
241:
235:
234:
230:
217:
215:
206:
186:Magnolia CMS
144:
127:
108:
104:
78:
59:
56:
51:
39:
38:
29:
827:December 8,
769:(1): 5–17.
747:December 8,
672:January 27,
474:(MPL) 1.1,
456:source code
362:attribution
222:Dirk Riehle
198:Qt Software
170:Berkeley DB
985:Categories
870:August 18,
528:References
939:Article "
932:Article "
925:Article "
918:Article "
914:OSS Watch
716:April 25,
694:April 25,
376:Badgeware
350:open core
216:The term
123:copyright
100:shareware
690:. Oracle
546:(2001).
511:See also
494:, whose
431:SugarCRM
427:new fork
331:clones,
287:SugarCRM
162:Asterisk
158:MySQL AB
151:NetBeans
115:copyleft
89:copyleft
44:software
946:Paper "
496:license
429:of the
368:forking
194:wolfSSL
174:Modelio
133:of the
131:hackers
490:, and
196:, and
147:Oracle
912:from
291:forks
256:MySQL
178:ZeroC
894:2007
872:2012
851:2007
829:2013
749:2013
718:2013
696:2013
674:2020
631:2009
581:2015
492:Ruby
484:Perl
466:and
394:FOSS
380:FOSS
337:and
190:JUCE
67:and
968:at
799:112
771:doi
458:of
348:, "
329:OSS
254:of
200:'s
182:Ice
180:'s
168:'s
154:IDE
149:'s
60:all
987::
821:50
819:.
815:.
797:.
783:^
767:10
765:.
726:^
583:.
535:^
228:.
202:Qt
192:,
188:,
184:,
176:,
172:,
164:,
156:,
102:.
958:"
896:.
874:.
853:.
831:.
777:.
773::
720:.
698:.
676:.
633:.
374:"
266:.
94:/
36:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.