Licensing Models
- Contents:
- Abstract
- Licensing Models
- Conclusion
- References
Abstract
This article discusses the licensing models and legal representation available for both users and developers of open source software.
Licensing Models
More and more business firms are participating in the open source movement. Leveraging open source for commercial purposes ranges from selling services for pure open source products to using source code from open source projects in commercial scenarios. Regardless of the purposes, participants need to consider which licensing model is appropriate for their businesses.
Open source software is "free" in the sense that there is no charge for the license. However, there is no one standard license in open source involvement. Based on licenses available on the Open Source Initiative (OSI), there are four questions to consider when choosing a license model for the business:
- Will the open source code be mixed with proprietary software?
- Will the modified open source code be used only internally?
- Can the new open source code be re-licensed?
- Will the original license holder have a priority over any derived work?
For example, the General Public License (GPL), requires the licensee to make "derived work" publicly available to the development community, unless such work is intended for internal use.
The OSI website also includes the admonition, "We encourage you to select a license that is consistent with your business model. And consult with your own attorney, because OSI does not provide legal advice." Due to the lack of legal expertise in open source development and the viral terms of open source software licenses, organizations, even with in-house developers, are often reluctant to devote resources to open source projects, particularly after the SCO Group's lawsuit against IBM (see www.groklaw.net).
For a for-profit organization, there are two fundamental licensing models:
- Proprietary software built on top of open source systems: Application software is developed for open source-powered systems, such as Linux operating system, and is not licensed under any open source license. Since the application software runs on open source systems, users only pay for the commercial components.
- Commercializing open source code through dual-licensing: Two licenses include one for open source components and one for commercial added-on components. This model enables a software vendor to sell more advanced commercial versions of the open source software, while providing legal protection to both the vendor and user.
Take Trolltech as an example. A leading provider of application development software, Trolltech applies a dual licensing model to its business by providing commercial software licenses for a fee while offering the software under open source licenses. Its software development cycle involves six phases: (1) Trolltech develops products; (2) Trolltech releases beta versions; (3) the community (open source and commercial) provides feedback; (4) there is rapid product stabilization; followed by (5) final release to customers; and (6) sales that fund further development. In the words of Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB, "Dual licensing is a win-win for all, as technology vendors can purchase and license commercially-supported software that has been tested and proven by a huge open source community. Similarly, the open source community benefits from software that is backed by a stable organization."
It is apparently not an easy task for inexperienced tech firms to decide and choose an appropriate business model with regard to licensing. A legal assistance center, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) led by Eben Moglen (professor at Columbia Law School and general counsel of the Free Software Foundation), provides legal representation and other law related services to protect and advance free and open source software, and to support open source developers who cannot afford to face potentially weighty legal bills. With assistance from Eben Moglen, Diane Peters (general counsel of Open Source Development Lab (OSDL)), Lawrence Lessig (professor of law at Stanford Law School), and Daniel Weitzner (director of the World Wide Web Consortium's Technology and Society activities), the center provides legal services in four primary areas: asset stewardship, licensing, license defense and litigation support, and legal consulting and lawyer training.
Conclusion
Open source software is "free" in the sense that there is no charge for the license. However, there is no one standard license that fits all users. It is not an easy task for an inexperienced tech firm to select the appropriate licensing model, although two fundamental licensing models do exist for the for-profit organization: (1) proprietary software built on top of open source systems; and (2) commercialized open source code through dual-licensing.
References
* Fink, Martin (2003), The Business and Economics of Linux and Open Source, Prentice Hall PTR/HP Books.
* Krishnamurthy, Sandeep (September-October 2003), A Managerial Overview of Open Source Software, Business Horizons.