Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<p>Just to make this clear: Open Source software by its <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>definition</strong></a> is free for any kind of use, without any fee (esp. clause 1 and 6 of the definition). </p> <p>So if that was your intent, </p> <ul> <li><strong>no Open Source license restricts commercial use of the software</strong></li> <li><strong>no Open Source license enforces mandatory license fees</strong></li> </ul> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_licensing" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Dual licensing</strong></a> tries to encourage companies to pay for a non-Open-Source license that has some additional/other incentives compared to the chosen Open Source license.</p> <p>Note that even for commercial purposes your customers are still free to use the software under the Open Source license without paying any fee, so you have to give them some real incentives to get them pay for it.</p> <p>So in fact, if you want to really <em>force</em> your customers to pay for commercial use, you won't be able to do that with an Open Source license.</p> <p><strong>An alternative approach</strong> to making money developing Open Source software is to make commercial customers pay for enhancements to the software (which might or might not later on be enrolled into the Open Source tree) or for services around the software like consulting, customization or installation.</p> <p>Note that in this case, the customer pays for the service, not for the software. This is in contrast to dual licensing, where the software is the product that is paid for.</p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload