Can you sell open source software?

Andy,

It's complicated but I'll see if I can help a little. Essentially, it depends on the specific license.

Open source at it's base meaning just says that you can see the code. It's not encrypted or hidden in any way. That code is still copyrighted though, and it can't be distributed/modified/etc UNLESS it's released under a specific open source license which allows that. There are a variety of open source licenses which allow distribution, modification, selling and so on, so you'd need to know which one applies to a given piece of software before you do anything with it.

Hope that helps,
Kathy

P.S. I am not a lawyer and it's best to consult one for stuff like this

Hey Andy,

Kathy's right, but most, if not all the Open Source software that does allow people to use their code and make revisions, also stipulates that you must offer the specified license that goes with the orginal code in writing on your site, and an attached copy of the license in the product if you are selling a revised version. You also provide a link to the originator of the code.

Can't remember off hand, but it's the GU** something license I'm speaking of.

But, I'd read there TOS to find out what specifically you have to do.

Andy,

in general you can sell open source code - but you must adhere to the license its released under. Which typically means you can not take anything away from the original license i.e. you can not restrict access to the underlying licensed material. The big daddy of this is the GPL, or GNU General Public License.

If you want to take an OS program and sell it - more power to you, but you must realize that your customer can then take the program and sell it too - or simply give it away. You can not restrict access to the code/program, but you can sell it. So can your customers.

Most people misunderstand the GPL, BSD, etc licenses. Each has its own nuances, but the basic premise, from Richard Stalman's point of view, is that you can not restrict access to the code and thus deprive the community of future enhancements, etc. His original organization made most of its money supporting emacs and selling 9 track tapes of GNU software (this was before the wide spread access of arpanet, uunet, and what became the Internet).

SO, that means I can take a GPL piece of code, slap it on a DVD, and sell it. More than likely I'd sell squat of it, since you could go download it from somewhere else for free, but I can sell it.

Which is why most people provide some sort of value added bonuses to the open source product. I.E.. they give away the product (like Linux or Open Office), but add things like 24/7 support, or proprietary tools, or training etc. You can restrict access to those components you create yourself - but you can not restrict people for providing/selling the underlying product (e.g Linux/Open Office).

The thing I want to make clear is you can sell it (but why would anyone buy it from you without some pretty good add-ons) but you can't prevent others from doing the same with what you provide.


Now comes the tricky part - the gist of your post. What if I take open source material, add proprietary code to it - and then sell it. Do I have to 'give away' my part of the code?

Depends...

If you make a stand alone program that uses SHARED libraries, then you can justify keeping your code private. BUT you must honor the original license for the material you took - ie that park you must make available to others so they can use it too. If you use static libraries to compile, then typically you've created a derived product and it falls under the original license - you can't restrict access to it.

There is very little case history in the US courts to cover these types of issues. Mostly the more fanatical and uninformed of the OS movement hate anyone trying to 'sell' open source material. But its basically contract law.

Not copyright, the creators of open source material almost always maintain their copyright - and with a recent court case this portion of Open Source material does have some case law behind it.
It basically followed what you are talking about here - a company created a program(a driver I think) and place it under the GPL. Another company took it, modified it, and tried to charge for ith WITHOUT making the underlying code available, claiming proprietary status. The courts actually upheld that the original creator could enforce its copyright against the derived copy.

As always - IANAL, but given the lack of case law - its a sticky wicket waiting to happen.

Please feel free to drop me a line with any questions,

Good luck.,
--Jack

The GNU Project have an interesting take on selling open source software, and how it can benefit both the client and open source community as a whole (in short, by receiving money for selling the software, you may feel compelled to develop it and contribute back to the community - whether this happens in reality I'm not so sure!)

Selling Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

Thanks a lot for that Jack - it makes sense.

So with the issue of being a customer, if I buy a product from some IMer that is based on an Opensource community site and they're selling it without any message or information about the opensource it's based on - what do I need to be wary of?

Can I just buy it and then start selling their version of it? I'm sure they probably don't think that would be good.

If they're ignorant of all this - how does that affect my rights? (i.e they're not providing the original code at all and are just selling installed versions of their version with nothing provided.

Andy

Its all been said, but FWIW:

- Check the license - selling OSS is possible, but you often have to supply the source code. For PHP scripts, thats usually how they come anyway

- Original Code - Its rarely worth writing original code from scratch. Often, you have to use open source code libraries, javascript files, etc. anyway. Plus - OSS has the advantage of having more security breaches fixed.

- Conscience - Selling scripts and systems is just the beginning. Anyone selling scripts usually provides some documentation, videos, support, etc... there is a ton of value there.

Lots of my fellow warriors know that I build/sell/develop websites based on the Drupal CMS. I have often "Sold" packages of Drupal pre-configured for specific tasks and sites. The value is in the setup, support and the fact that it would take them months (at least) of research, experimentation and learning the system for them to replicate the site on their own... or they'd pay 4-5 times as much to have a developer put it together for them.

Tophler's Third Wave theory suggests that in the Information Age, its not money/resource that is power... its knowledge/information.

BTW - I have seen some people selling scripts based on OSS and am mortified when it turns out to be crappy setups... if you are starting with OSS and selling it, have the decency to put out a quality product!

It might be worth checking to see if the license is LGPL, which explicitly permits use of code in commercial closed source applications in certain circumstances.

One thing to remember about GPL that some people seem to misunderstand. The license is "viral". That means if you use GPL code in your software, the license states that your software must be distributed under the GPL. In effect the license "infects" your code.

That doesn't mean you can't sell it, but it does mean you need to make the source code available and you can't place any restrictions on other people selling it or giving it away. I've actually seen an IM product (won't name the product or creator here) that was based largely on a piece of GPL software, and the product included a copy of the GPL and then its own "license" that stated that you could sell it for any price but could not give it away free. According to the terms of the GPL that other "license" wouldn't be enforcable, but that also depends on whether or not those terms of the GPL are actually enforcable (which as far as I know has never been challenged in court, so it's still unclear).

Other licenses have different terms, of course. Things like the BSD and MIT licenses generally let you use the code for anything you want as long as you include the copyright/license notice with whatever software you distribute, and you can place whatever restrictions you want on your own software based on that code.

Basically if you want to sell opensource software or anything based on opensource software, read the license very carefully and make sure you're perfectly clear on what you can and can't do with it.

In most cases, you do have the right to sell opensource software, as long as you abide by the terms of the license. As the Free Software Foundation (authors of the GPL) state, they're talking about "free as in freedom" not "free as in beer". Nowhere in the license does it say you can't sell any software that the license covers, only that you can't restrict the freedom of the people you distribute the software to.

You can't sell the basic package as is [i.e. the same thing everyone can download from the project's site for free].

But if you add value to the package; it can the setup aid, pre-configured installs, tiny add-ons, or even a 3 page manual [which most OSS lack], you can sell it with no problem. In the case you are not selling the basic package, you are selling your added value.

Hi Phil,

I kind of understand what they are saying, but like a law it's got many interpretations... Enough to scare me away from GPL altogether.

I now look for classes which use the BSD licence (simplified, not the original). Am I correct in assuming all you have to do with the BSD licence is include the copyright notice?

GPL "Infection" - this is a really grey area, and people have been debating it for years. For example: Drupal is GPL, so in theory everything that it "touches" is GPL. However, the best research I can find suggests that its legally questionable whether a commercial Drupal Module is free to copy/sell/etc. Arguments can be made either way and its not been really tested in court.

Also, there is the question of what constitutes original code... in theory, one could replicate code by rewriting it and using the original source as a guide. You may end up with 90% of the code being identical, but you technically rewrote it.

When talking about PHP scripts, they are going to be "open source" unless obfuscated. Doesn't mean they are "free" to copy/sell, but it does mean you can see it, edit it, etc.

And actually, you CAN sell GPL scripts as they are with no modifications. There might be some question about the ethics, but its legal. Its just better business to provide additional value.

ALTERNATE MODEL

Instead of just selling the script, you can also sell a hosted version (using an API or password account). This keeps your script "closed" because you are actually selling SAS (software as a service).

No matter what, I think its somewhat pointless to sell scripts an NOT expect to have them copied/ripped off/whatever. Its a matter of time. Making a script GPL can increase the exposure, keep your copyright/authorship info attached and build your reputation.

OSS is a wonderful concept, and lots of people are making money with "free" software (just like Public Domain info ...

Its all about adding value and then having good sales/copy skills.

Ron

Hi Andy,

I'll give a detailed explanation and I'd like to see it become a sticky in the programming forum.

The code itself may not be sold.

However, products and services around the code may be sold.

You may put the program on a CD, and sell the CD.

You may build a computer that includes the program, and sell the computer.

You may make a website using the software, and sell advertisements on the site. You may also sell subscriptions to the site.

You may make a gadget that includes an embedded chip running the program, and sell the gadget.

You may make a how-to video with instructions for other people to make such a gadget, and sell the video.

You may write a book about the program, and sell the book. This is true even if the book is nothing but a printout of the code.

You may offer a consulting service that includes giving away the program, and charge a consulting fee. This is true even if your consulting consists of nothing but telling people how to go to the website and download the program themselves.

In every one of these cases, you're adding something of value... even if the value is just telling people something they could have found out for themselves.

There's only a few things you're not allowed to do.

You're not allowed to interfere with other people from getting the program for themselves, including the source code.

You're not allowed to pretend you wrote the program, if you didn't.

You're not allowed to use copyright to keep other people from getting the source code for themselves.

If you make a modified version of the program, you have to tell people you're using your modified version and let them know how to get the original.

In some open source licenses, if you make a modified version, you have to make your source code available. In some other open source licenses, you can keep your modification code secret.

In some open source licenses, you are free to sell a modified version and keep your modification code secret. However you must also make your modified version available for free if people wish, and you have to tell them they have this option. This is called "dual licensing" and it usually involves a free version for do it yourselfers, and a modified version for a fee that includes support services. Sometimes the licensing prohibits use of the free version in a for-profit enterprise.

There's a split of philosophies and personalities in the open source world.

Richard Stallman would prefer that nobody ever charges money for software. This way, anyone who knows how to program would always be able to get at the source and help themselves or others.

He's the primary founder of what's become the open source movement. As a programmer, he's certainly put his money where his mouse is by giving away a substantial amount of software. He's also inspired many other programmers and businesses to make their software free as well. He made Unix-inspired software affordable, spreading some powerfully important ideas about software should work. Even his detractors credit these achievements.

Stallman's most famous for starting the Free Software Foundation; the GNU system, a play on words "Gnu's Not Unix" for a Unix workalike system; Copyleft, a play on words using copyright law to ensure the source code is freely available; and emacs, the programmer's tool using editor macros. The GNU software license is "viral" which means that if part of a system uses free software, you generally have to give away all the source code.

Linus Torvalds wrote a free Unix-like kernel, a program needed in any operating system, before Stallman's collaborators had their own. Linus is not only famous as a brilliant software engineer, but brilliant at using the Internet to develop a new way for programmers to collaborate worldwide, including delegating authority to other senior programmers. He has been far more successful at leading collaborators than Stallman, and I think this might be something that bugs Stallman.

(Everyone calls Linux by his first name, Stallman by his last or by his initials rms which he uses in email.)

Stallman wants to see systems that include this mix of contributions to be more accurately called "GNU/Linux." The GNU team now has their own kernel, but the Linux kernel has so much of a head start that it doesn't matter much. Outside of Stallman and a few other purists, a lot of people put the Linux kernel, and other components from Gnu to add up to a usable system, into a distribution and call the whole thing "Linux."

You can make your own Linux distribution if you like, and can sell CD's of it, but you also have to make it freely available.

Since Linux is licensed with the GNU license, this means the Linux kernel is like an oyster that grows more and more layers of free software around its central pearl.

Stallman insists that "free software" is the most appropriate term for what he creates and what he wants other programmers to create. A popular summary is that this is both free as in "free speech" and free as in "free beer."

Stallman is outspoken about his philosophy and his leanings towards communist flavored politics. He sees the entire bundle of ideas as fitting together. When it seems to him other people pick and choose the portions that are expedient to them in a way, glibly ignoring the ethical implications of their actions, he's not shy about objecting.

Eric Raymond is a good example of people who say that this depth of intensity on Stallman's part can make business people confused.

This more flexible perspective says that it's not necessary to accept all of Stallman's philosophies and politics to see the benefits of sharing source code. Raymond is one of the people who says a communist flavored ideology, delivered as rants by a wild-haired rebel, won't win over that many people and businesses in the capitalist world.

And, Raymond says, all of that philosophizing and radical politics doesn't have much to do with software anyway. He's put "free as in free speech" software into a business suit and introduced it to all the right people, and it's worked. And if this is not also "free as in free beer," he's fine with that.

Raymond is famous for an essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," in which he compared software development to a grand cathedral with a master plan, or an unplanned marketplace where everyone discovers ideas as they go. He suggested that the bazaar is the more efficient model for how teams of people can improve software, rather than relying on the genius of one master designer.

When you see anything about open source, you have to figure out which side of the aisle you're dealing with.

Are they simply saying open source is good for business?
Or are they going beyond that to sell what Stallman sees is a progressively radical philosophy of life, economics, and politics?
Or are they doing what Stallman says is selling out morality for a cheap buck?
Or are they doing what Raymond says is ethical capitalism that doesn't get sucked into Stallman's rants?

Meanwhile, they all agree that the code's free, you're welcome to use it, and if you can get someone to pay you to make a better version of the code and give it away you should certainly do so!

Regards,
Allen

Phil, I'm a human being, and I think my almost 250 posts here demonstrate a fairly consistent writing style and thought process, despite my occasionally having a bad day. Today's a good day for me, by the way. And how are you?

I've worked worked most of the last 20 years as a professional software engineer. During this time, I've been intrigued by the possibilities, problems, possibilities, personalities and politics of open source software. I've read most of the original essays and commentaries by most of the original people, most of that reading at the original times of publication. For example, I remember reading Stallman's "Why software should be free" in the mid 90's, and discussing it with my colleagues as we implemented large corporate databases.

What's your background? When you were exposed to Stallman's ideas and Raymond's variations on those themes? How much have you seriously studied the matter, including reading most of the relevant copyright laws?

Perhaps I was remiss in not providing links to the most relevant organizations, such as GNU, FSF, and OSI, for those who'd like to follow up with the original documents. I need to be away from the computer for the next several hours, doing human being activities unrelated to software. Perhaps you could help readers by providing those relevant links, including to the Stallman essay I just mentioned and the latest version of the GPL and the BSD, X, Sun, and Mozilla open source licenses?

In my experience online - going back to dial-up bulletin boards, before there was a World Wide Web - the use of terms like AAAAARGGGH, an abundance of exclamation points, and proclamations that someone's wrong without a more accurate exposition, are all taken as the online equivalents to yelling and screaming. If you could point to the specific factual errors I've made and correct them in a courteous manner, that would of course be a helpful service to those I might have misled by writing hastily.

If I was unfair to Stallman is summarizing his essay, "why software should be free" as suggesting that he'd prefer that software should be free, please help me see how I missed the point.

Anyway, I'll be back later today or tomorrow and look forward to your enlightening clarifications of each of the points I unintentionally obscured.

Regards,
Allen

Hi Allen,

I'm good too thanks.

Point taken about the tone. I remember Telix too. Post adjusted with apologies. I was forgetting myself.

The dig about being a spinner or robot was friendly, I should have added a smilie.

I just thought the language of your post was very vague, full of generalizations and potentially misleading. That's probably what set me off.

Maybe you understand what you mean but take another look at the language you use and see just how many ways some of those statements could be construed.

Anyway i'm here to make friends so maybe one day we can have a beer and talk about PDP-11s.

Phil

If so chose you can get around most open source cms/commerce licences by selling a domain with the site. Then the new owner can do whatever they like with it.

Drupal can be white labelled so long as the code contains the original licencing in it. My Ultimate SEO Build is a good example of this.

Fair enough. I'll have time to rewrite my post for clarity in the next day or so.

Thanks,
Allen

Can we have this thread moved to the Programming forum please?

Regards,
Allen

Phil, thanks for clarifying. I did mean to go in that direction.

Jack, thank you for jumping in. I haven't met rms myself. Before your post, I was one to two degrees of separation from him. Now that you've joined the discussion, we're all only one degree away here... because we can write to you.

If you see this as a business issue for general discussion, I'm fine with it staying here rather than the programming forum. I just thought I should ask the question.

With my post, I wanted to provide a one page overview of open source. Unfortunately, the topic is complex. For example, I should more carefully point out rms's view that source code access should not require a separate licensing fee beyond any existing price for the software, nor charges beyond physical distribution costs. I think that's a more accurate representation of his point of view.

I'd then need to compare this with the OSI version of open source definitions, and discuss how this in turn affected use of the BSD kernel in Apple's Darwin, etc. etc.

Adding those kinds of disclaimers, issue by issue, would turn my summary into a 15 page white paper. Those kinds of detailed documents are already available. But they are complex enough for people like Andy to need a concise summary.

So I'm wondering, Jack, do you have a one page summary you could provide here in lieu of mine? I wouldn't mind pulling my post in deference to your far more extensive expertise in this area. Otherwise, I'll work on revising my introduction.

It's a good thing I'm not trying to use it to sell anything today!

Regards,
Allen

A death in the family means I likely won't have time to work on a revised summary article this week. However, it looks like the interest in this thread evaporated after a day or two anyway. If anyone needs more information, I recommend following up with Jack.

Regards,
Allen

What if I combine several open source modules, for example a signal processing module, a text editor and a graphics module, stringing them together with my own code. Assuming I string them together in a way that adds something useful, would I have to publish my "string together" code in addition to the code for the OS modules?

Thanks
Dave