On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 13:13, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > This last lesson was really driven home to me at the Open Source Business
> > Convention; managers were slavering all over "dual licensing" as the "new
> > model of open source." When I pointed out that there's another name for
> > dual licensing -- "shareware" -- I got some real uncomfortable silences.
> > Seems that a lot of companies want the fruits of Open Source without changing
> > the way they do business at all. Big surprise, eh?
>
> Agreed. I see dual-license as an interim step for companies moving from
> close to true open source.
>
Funny, I've never really felt that way. I don't see all that much
difference between what my$ql does with it's database and what m$ did
with ie or office or <insert m$ product here>... give it away for free
until you get enough market share to start charging more and more. I
guess it's a little better because if the company itself we're ever to
go under people could still take the source and go with it, but still
the dual license scheme to me is just the latest incarnation of a
"loss-leader" marketing plan.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
