A lot of people seem to confuse Commercial with Proprietary...
They are not the same.
They are not the same.
Also, more relevant to the discussion I was responding to, the GPL license doesn't allow re-licensing without consent (or a pre-arranged copyright assignment - a contributor's agreement). And it's copyright law which enforces this.
Most people don't want to work with random contributors who wish to hold a gun to their heads in perpetuity.
An aside, that's an awfully violent visual for discussing ownership of code.
This article gives a nice description of the differences: https://opensource.com/article/18/3/cla-vs-dco-whats-differe...
So even if theoretically the most aggressive licenses still allow for commercialization, the practical effect is that commercializing a copyleft codebase won't travel too far on its own as a business plan.
This has been discussed a lot of times in HN, and the conclusion always is something on the lines of "don't do copyleft if you want to have any aspirations of commercialization on the software itself as opposed to peripheral elements such as support services or similar".
Red Hat was acquired for $34 Billion.
It really depends on what you're selling and how good your product is.
> "don't do copyleft if you want to have any aspirations of commercialization on the software itself as opposed to peripheral elements such as support services or similar"
Cop out argument. This comes from the same people who do split licenses that spit in the face of the spirit of OSS. It's people who want all of the benefits of writing OSS (outside contribution, growth in use of your product, less investment in sales) but none of the risks (someone else using what you offer for free and having a better product than you). It's purely anti-competitive.
Turns out that Linux is a good product that needs a lot of stewardship and support that's worth paying for.
There's also hundreds of thousands of software developers and consultancies offering their services that make use of GPL'd (and other OSS-licensed) code. Probably 90% of this board is selling their services/labor of GPL'd projects. It's been my whole career.
No, what it sounds like is we're talking about people who want to write OSS but also want ownership and exclusive rights to make money off of it. My argument there is pound sand.
No idea about Suse.
In any case, even if they are great success examples, these can be counted on the fingers of one hand... so I'd say the sample size is not precisely "enough", not at least to prove a point.
EDIT: (reply to an edited part of the comment)
> what it sounds like is we're talking about people who want to write OSS but also want ownership and exclusive rights to make money off of it
I agree. On the other hand, most of the OSS that exists is created by such people, and what do we prefer? Idealistic but non-existing OSS software? or compromised but existing and useful OSS software? That's the question that I feel is behind all the conversations about this topic.
You miscategorize Canonical like it's some vanity project. Even vanity projects can be profitable enterprises! Look at Koenigsegg cars! They're literally a millionaire's vanity project that is a profitable enterprise employing hundreds of people.
> I agree. On the other hand, most of the OSS that exists is created by such people, and what do we prefer? Idealistic but non-existing OSS software? or compromised but existing and useful OSS software? That's the question that I feel is behind all the conversations about this topic.
Free software has been around since the 80s, at this point. With or without the GPL. It turns out that there are many, many successful products and businesses that use other OSS licenses. I don't think we're in any danger of people with our skillsets not being able to eat. We're basically all potential millionaires.
The GPL is _not_ the only option available. Heck, Apache is absurdly popular and the bedrock of many enterprises...