[OT] Microsoft filled patent applications for scoped and immutable types

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 10:30:24 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> There is some precedent for a commercial software package to be 
> released like this:
>
> "This is available under either a commercial license or GPL. 
> You can freely download and use the software and its source 
> code, at no cost, under the terms of the GPL. Companies that do 
> not wish to be bound by the GPL can purchase a commercial 
> license instead."

Ah, I wasn't sure what you meant by "cross-licensed," the 
GPL/commercial  licensing model you're referring to is commonly 
called dual-licensing.

> Or there will be a common variant like:
>
> "Students, home users and small businesses can use it under the 
> terms of GPL, but companies with annual revenue >= $xxxxx 
> require a commercial license."
>
> Or something roughly along those lines anyway.

Under the terms of the GPL, it's not feasible to set an arbitrary 
revenue limit like that, as those getting the source under the 
GPL are free to redistribute it to anyone they like.  However, 
since the GPLv2 doesn't deal with software patents, it may be 
possible to set such a revenue limit with patent licensing, ie 
license the software patents employed in the code for free to 
those you mentioned but charge for the patents with larger 
businesses.

> I don't know what the FSF would have to say about it, or how 
> well it works in practice, but the idea is that the source code 
> is both free and free, AND since the OSS license used is GPL, 
> there is still (at least in theory) sufficient added value to 
> to justify a paid version (beyond just premium support. Being a 
> support-based business has its own pros/cons - if you're just a 
> group of developers trying to make a living, the Red Hat model 
> may not be a great option). And, the OSS-version, being GPLed, 
> cannot easily be used by another company *as* a competitor to 
> you.

This dual-licensing model works fairly well, as a handful of 
companies have used it successfully and MySQL AB brought in 
almost 9 figures in revenue using this model before getting 
bought out by Sun for $1 billion almost seven years ago 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL_AB), although most think that 
was a big overpay by the soon-to-be-sold Sun.  The MySQL CEO went 
on to head another company called Eucalyptus, which uses a 
similar GPLv3/commercial dual-licensing model.

The big drawbacks are that dual licensing requires full copyright 
assignment from anyone who contributes to the GPL'd code, or the 
company won't be able to re-license those patches commercially, 
and that usually only one company can make money off the code 
through commercial licensing, which as you mentioned keeps 
competitors out.

> Theoretically, you *could* do that with BSD/MIT/zlib/etc 
> instead of GPL. Nothing's explicitly prohibiting it. But then 
> where's the "added value" in the paid version? They can already 
> do anything they want. Or how do you restrict the OSS version 
> to small businesses or home users only? It's BSD, it already 
> permits *anyone* to use it or re-grant the same permissive 
> license to anyone else. And what's to stop a competitor from 
> competing against you with your own product?

The dual-licensing model doesn't make sense with permissive 
licenses like BSD/MIT/zlib/boost so they use a different model, 
where they provide an "open core" of BSD-licensed code for free 
and then charge for proprietary features added through 
closed-source patches, sometimes called "freemium."  This is the 
model Apple and Google/Samsung use with iOS and Android, only the 
most successful software projects of the last decade, :) though 
Android obviously makes available a lot more open source than iOS 
does.

This mixed model doesn't stop competitors from taking the 
permissively-licensed source, but that's actually a benefit for 
users as it means more competition.  For example, you can see 
this with all the companies that forked Android, whether Amazon, 
Nokia, or Xiaomi, which now sells more smartphones in China than 
anyone else, including Samsung.  As long as the companies provide 
enough value in their closed patches, they do fine.

> Don't get me wrong, I like BSD/MIT/zlib/etc., and I use such 
> licenses whenever my intent is to get my software USED rather 
> than directly make money off it. But trying to mix them with a 
> commercial model (for example, if you want to make a living 
> directly off your software) seems very problematic. Being a 
> support company seems the only theoretical way, and even then, 
> anyone else, any corporation, etc., can still just pop up and 
> offer support for your software too, and without the overhead 
> of being a primary developer.

On the contrary, the mixed model that such permissive licenses 
allow is much more commercially successful than any GPL-based 
model.  If you insist that _all_ source must be open, only then 
the GPL dual-licensing model may work better.

> Yea, I can agree there's some truth to that. And even if you 
> can argue that closed doesn't TRULY have real genuine benefits, 
> it still doesn't matter: As long as people perceive a benefit, 
> then that's real enough in its effects.

There are genuine _commercial_ benefits to closed-source, ie you 
can keep others from simply taking your code.  There may not be 
any inherent _technical_ benefits, but if you're not making any 
money, you can't fund much technical development either.  So a 
mixed open/closed source model mixes these commercial and 
technical benefits, rather than ignoring one for the other.

> Yea. I hate that the mixing is necessary, but big business has 
> all the money, and big business likes closed/proprietary, so if 
> you want some of the money (*or* just a significant chunk of 
> the market), then you have to please them enough to get them to 
> fork it over. *Then* you can go from there and swing around as 
> much clout as you've earned.
>
> It's sickening, but that's where things are right now. At least 
> it beats the hell out of the Windows model. And it *could* 
> still lead to further acceptance of and demand for even more 
> openness. Like burgers or crack: Give 'em a taste, maybe 
> they'll like it and want more. And maybe by then you'll have 
> earned enough clout that you'll be *able* to given them more.
>
> The world may not be ready for full-on Stallman openness yet, 
> but the mixed model at least gets the foot in the door. It's a 
> step in the right direction.

I have argued, on the contrary, that the mixed model is the best 
one, not pure open or closed source:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=sprewell_licensing

I think the evidence is in that my article from four years ago 
called it right. :)