The very stable 9.x release of the software will remain as a supported commercial version.I mean, I get the point they're trying to make (I think) but I wish people would be a little more precise when talking about this topic.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/05/friday_squid_...
So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people." That exists and can flourish further with right mix of organizations, charters, licenses and so on. Just little work in it.
None of the four essential freedoms mention price. I work for a free software company which sells that software. I don't know what you're referring to. I clearly said that "free and commercial software are a FALSE dichotomy" -- meaning that you can have commercial free software.
> So, "free as in Stallman" software might be a dichotomy with proprietary but not "free as in free enough for many people."
Again "free as in Stallman" doesn't have anything to do with whether you pay for the software (in fact, he used to sell copies of GNU Emacs for $100). Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software. But you can't get proprietary software that respects your freedom. That is a dichotomy.
Free doesn't refer to price it refers to freedom. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Oh, I apologize. I clearly misread that exact statement. I bet it's because free, commercial, and false in same sentence almost always are arguing against what you said. That the two can't be combined. Whereas, we're arguing in different ways that they can. I must have skimmed it with my brain jumping right past the actual words to its intuitive guess of what they meant. At least I see how I failed. :)
"Proprietary software is software that takes away your freedom to use, modify and distribute the software. You can pay for free software and you can pay for proprietary software"
What firms are bringing in billions licensing or selling free software? I need a list of successful companies longer than Red Hat that can compete in both investment and lawsuits with big, proprietary firms. You can sell truly free software but almost nobody will buy it w/ you being super-niche in revenue. Whereas, useful and proprietary software can bring in significant money from customers esp in enterprise or government scenes. The proprietary ones just tend to scheme on customers, disappear, and other stuff. The free ones often aren't developed much, maintained, and so on.
My concept is to give you all the freedoms except for free distribution for a given project. You can use, modify, whatever the software as long as you pay the non-profit that develops, maintains, and supports it. You can also re-distribute that to other paying customers of the project. If non-profit stop supporting or distributing it, it goes BSD or Apache immediately per terms of the license or charter.
What are you missing other than widespread, free distribution in this model? As in, the availability of freeloaders that rarely contribute crap back. Do note that the project can give free copies in exchange for testing/feedback to get many eyeballs effect. Can also give discounts or free copies to academics to get their improvements.
What's left? Seriously, as I'm trying to see how close proprietary, shared source can get to FOSS without loosing the "sustainable, cash flow" part.
I work for SUSE, which is a free software company. Red Hat is another, as you mentioned. I found a list on Wikipedia[1] which has quite a few entries (though quite a few of those companies either no longer exist or were bought out by companies that don't exclusively work on free software).
> You can sell truly free software but almost nobody will buy it w/ you being super-niche in revenue.
That depends on your business model. The SUSE (and Red Hat) business model is to sell you a complete operating system which you are guaranteed to have support for. This is paid for by license costs for the base system and "modules" which are other pieces of software. If a user decides to install software which they didn't pay for, we don't support such a configuration if it breaks. Support in this case is not just support in setting up the system, it's also security updates and bug fixes (which are sometimes written by us and contributed back to the community). This sort of business model allows you to sell completely free software, because you're not selling the actual software you're selling licenses and support.
> My concept is to give you all the freedoms except for free distribution for a given project.
That would then be considered proprietary software in the strict sense of the word. It's better than nothing, but you have no practical freedom in that case because you cannot share your improvements to create a community -- one of the goals of the free software movement. The main thing to know is that free software is meant to mean that you cannot become entirely dependent on a company to support you. If you don't have the freedom to distribute modified and unmodified copies then you're (practically) at the mercy of the company that gave you the software.
> Seriously, as I'm trying to see how close proprietary, shared source can get to FOSS without loosing the "sustainable, cash flow" part.
Personally, I would never buy such software. I understand why it seems to be valuable to you to remove the free distribution freedoms of your users, but I don't agree with the logic. The problem is that you're still trying to "just sell the damn code", which doesn't guarantee you revenue with free software licenses (you can still sell it, but it's possible for a user to share the code with others without you knowing about it). Now, it's not very likely that many users would actually share the code (unfortunately), but it is possible. So, now you have to ask the question "what should I be selling". If you sell support (clients pay for you to develop new features for them, providing security fixes, bug fixes, etc) then you can make money selling completely free software. If you're scared of someone making money from your code, make it GPL and then you can take their changes back into your software.
Free software and proprietary software have only one difference which is how their distributed. Proprietary software is distributed in binary form only. Free software is usually distributed in binary and source form, but you can also distribute it in binary form with a link to where the source code is (and you can make it only be available to your customers -- that's still free software).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_software_compani...
"I found a list on Wikipedia[1] which has quite a few entries (though quite a few of those companies either no longer exist or were bought out by companies that don't exclusively work on free software)."
Appreciate the list. A bunch of those, including yours, are proprietary software companies that also GPL stuff. Or hybrids were a huge chunk of the revenue is support or GPL-component consulting instead of licensing proprietary addons. Still worth considering but not a "free software" company if issuing paid licenses.
" it's also security updates and bug fixes (which are sometimes written by us and contributed back to the community). This sort of business model allows you to sell completely free software, because you're not selling the actual software you're selling licenses and support."
That's true. It's also the model that rarely makes any real money. Red Hat and SUSE are exceptions to the rule, esp Red Hat. That they both license proprietary software on top of that model clouds the issue further. We'd have to have companies with only FOSS offerings plus support and services matching those or proprietary revenues to make the argument. I'll look at your link to see if I find those plus if there's financial data on app/feature vs support licensing to see what split of the revenue/profit they make.
"but you have no practical freedom in that case because you cannot share your improvements to create a community -- one of the goals of the free software movement."
You can do that exactly how I described. You underestimate how powerful of communities that can develop around proprietary software. Microsoft and IBM are extreme examples that had more to do with monopolistic practices. So, maybe Borland's Delphi or even early Solaris are better examples. The community is just limited to those that are willing to pay. That's FOSS's advantage.
" If you don't have the freedom to distribute modified and unmodified copies then you're (practically) at the mercy of the company that gave you the software."
This is a huge problem. It's why I'm working to eliminate it but FOSS has clear advantage here. We saw this with Oracle dropping OpenSolaris followed by others picking it up.
"Proprietary software is distributed in binary form only."
That's not true at all. MCP, the villain in Tron & brilliant OS for Burroughs, was distributed in source form to clients in the 60's with their modifications/fixes often going into new releases. Many proprietary software since were similarly shared source. The high-assurance security kernels even mandated vendors supplying source so you could meet A1-class requirement of inspecting and building it yourself. Even Windows source is available to some partners. There's also dual-licensed model where free software is a byproduct of licensing proprietary, shared-source software. So, proprietary and source available are not contradictory in any way. It's just distribution part as you said where distinctions must be made.
"If you sell support (clients pay for you to develop new features for them, providing security fixes, bug fixes, etc) then you can make money selling completely free software."
This is true. The question is "Do I make the same money at same market share as if I license it for low pricing?" I can imagine a database that cost even $5,000 per organization that's competitive with popular RDBMS on common usage with better reliability or security will probably break even on its development cost after first few dozen or so customers. That's plenty for development with enough left for support and administrative stuff. A $1,000/yr support agreement will take substantially more customers to cover all costs, especially development. Only exception I could see is if the developers were the admins and support people as well with obvious productivity issues.
So, that's the key difference. If it's paid, I can put more into the product to benefit my users while making some good profit along the way. Or hardly any at all depending on my goals. A support-driven organization can't compete unless they have crazy market share. I can also afford better talent, 3rd party solutions to tough problems (eg enterprise integrations), and patents for leverage in suits. Worst case, I can [L]GPL a specific product after a certain number of years to ensure minimum amount of investment recovered with it going to support contracts from there on.
Quite a few possibilities. I contend the only advantage FOSS has... maybe temporarily or maybe inevitably... is network effects of spreading as other benefits can be had in shared-source, paid agreements. Even isolation of risk of company with its charter or license terms.
Good catch, thanks. I did read that bit, and promptly overlooked it.