Years ago, during the advent of free and open-source software, most developers joined the movement purely for the fun of it. They wanted to make a difference in the world – build a free alternative to a paid package, and reduce the grip of large, profit-focused corporations on the software world. Out of these glorious sentiments came the GPL – hallmarked as the license to end all licenses – the stamp of approval from the open source community.
As with any idealistic movement, however, weeds soon came to sprout. Some of these weeds were in the form of paid software packages that stole and migrated open source code into their offering. Others were open source code, like Google’s Android, that lifted source code verbatim from other code bases without attribution. However the most nefarious of these were the hacks who took open source projects, licensed them as GPL, and then decided they would also offer a paid “commercial” version.
First of all, there is nothing wrong with offering a paid commercial support for an open source package. There is even nothing wrong with developing two parallel versions of a software package with different feature sets – one geared toward a paid enterprise offering, and a free version for the public. The problem, however, is in apps with a limited focus, such as FlowPlayer, that try to take essentially the same source code and up-charge for commercial use. Call it what you like, however that is not the spirit of the GPL.
The trick to this technique is to add annoying trademarks and watermarks to the software, and then create a deceptive FAQ page on your site that seems to say that the trademarks cannot be removed. While GPL software can require author attributions, the goal of that provision was to keep author attributions in the source code, not brazenly sprawled across the application interface. While derivative works can remove or change this attribution, the FAQ on FlowPlayer’s carefully words the notices to give the impression that users cannot. This FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) likely helps increase their commercial package sales for users who really do not require it.
The bottom line is – GPL software should not be used as a technique to gain publicity and user base, in order to spur commercial purchases of a product. GPL is not a marketing technique – it’s an idealistic world where people work together, share, and where knowledge is free. Let’s get back to the old days of software development, where work was work, play was play, and before every open source project had a “plan for monetization.”
Written by Andrew Palczewski
About the Author
Andrew Palczewski is CEO of apHarmony, a Chicago software development company. He holds a Master's degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and has over ten years' experience in managing development of software projects.
Google+
