Re: [Maria-discuss] Additional promise to the MCA

Hi!

...

...

...

...

"Arjen" == Arjen Lentz writes:

Arjen> Hi Monty Arjen> On 08/10/2009, at 8:48 AM, Michael Widenius wrote: Arjen> Dual would only make sense for discrete/distinct components,

...

but even Arjen> there it might be easier to just have it be GPL or BSD.

This is for the case where the customer does not want to have the code under GPL. BSD is not an option as then they could release the code and we would not have any dual-license revenue anymore.

Arjen> I regard the traditional dual licensing (in this context) as a non- Arjen> viable revenue model. There is where we disagree :) It's a very viable revenue model for many companies, including Monty Program Ab; Just because we can't do it for MariaDB itself, doesn't mean that we can't do it for other things in the future. The promise is also relevant for other GPL vendors that are doing dual licensing and who wants to signal to their users, contributors and customers how they are going to relicense the code. Arjen> If it's custom code, have user pay for it and license code as GPL or Arjen> BSD. Arjen> If it's BSD, they can also use it in commercial - you could charge Arjen> extra for making it BSD rather than GPL, for instance. That is not a working business model. For a software company that wants to be highly successful (and get a high valuation), you need license revenues to be able to do that. You can't get that by relicensing GPL code as BSD. (Not that I am not talking about MariaDB here say, but more about principles) Arjen> People come back to the original company for expertise/

...

customisation Arjen> anyway, as they're the experts. As long as the service is good. Arjen> There's also no incentive to like republish stuff, as that wouldn't be Arjen> the core business of the client company. They wouldn't have interest Arjen> in that.

What you are talking is about a company that is working in the service sector, not a company that makes a living doing software and gets valuated based on it having license revenues. The valuation for a service company is about 2x times the revenue while a software company with license revenue is valued 10x times the revenue.

...

If you are successful, there is always someone who will take advantage of you...

Arjen> Some will, so be it. Arjen> They'd have to be a customer first to do this (with the above example) Arjen> and you wouldn't keep them as a customer anyway, so there's no real Arjen> loss. Yes, there is a real loss as you have lost your IP and thus lost your main revenue stream. Arjen> In general, people will act properly - particularly if the environment Arjen> is *perceived* as fair to them. This doesn't apply for someone that is creating a software business with the intention to some day sell it and make a nice profit.

...

Look for example at MySQL; If they would license their GPL code as BSD, they would at once loose all their licensing business.

Arjen> Good. I wish Sun/MySQL all the best and success, and for their own Arjen> good their old licensing has to cease. Arjen> It is still causing a lot of bad publicity. This has nothing to do with GPL or getting profit by selling licenses under a dual license scheme. It's a well established and even respected business when working with Open Source software. Arjen> It also rips off users/clients, because unscrupulus Sun/MySQL sales Arjen> people selling licenses where none are required. Agree that this is a problem and something a respectable company should not do. It's exactly because I wanted to make a stand against some of the Sun practices in selling licenses that I added the clarification of how I see that Monty Program Ab will work with code that is donated to the MariaDB project.a Arjen> By stopping it, this would make a clear statement that Sun does not Arjen> support that kind of behaviour. You mean stop trying to sell things under a false pretences? I agree with that. Arjen> It's no longer part of a legitimate business model, it's turned out as Arjen> a devious scam. I disagree with that. The fact that some people are doing things wrong, doesn't mean that the business model is wrong. It would be the same thing as saying that you should not sell used cars, because some used cars sells persons has a poor reputation. Arjen> Furthermore, people *perceive* it as a scam, and thus it's not Arjen> interesting for you or I to be doing something similar. Arjen> "Dual Licensing" in the sphere of MySQL is a no-winner. Just drop it Arjen> and lead by example. I lead by example by making the rules more clear. Dual Licensing is still one of the best way to make money in the Open Source space (and in many cases the ONLY WAY you can make enough money to create a workable business), so there is no need to go away from it. Regards, Monty