[antlr-interest] Selling GPL'd Software--Fully Compensated

[Matthew Tedder]

You can also sell a binary of ANTLR Studio GPL
licensed for say $49 a copy but provide the source
code for no less than say a $40,000 fee.  This is the
model TheKompany uses with its GPL'd software.

Richard Stallman didn't like it much, but he agreed it
was legal.

Again, I strongly recommend just giving it away using
it as an advertising for your services
making/enhancing compilers for customers.  You will
definitely make more money this way than with a
commercial, per-user license.  Show me one company
that failed to make profitability using this model?  

Matthew

--- Jose San Leandro <jose.sanleandro at ventura24.es>
wrote:

> On Thursday 22 September 2005 17:39, Prashant Deva
> wrote:
> > 1.)  Why isnt ANTLR Studio GPLed?
> >
> > Some people are saying that there is nothing in
> GPL that does not
> > allow you to charge for your product.
> >
> > Yes, that is true, but it also says that you gotta
> distribute the
> > source along for free.
> >
> > Now even a bonehead can conclude that if you can
> get the source code
> > for free then you would rather just download it
> and compile it
> > yourself than pay for the software. after all it
> takes only a minute
> > to compile. So NO, get this clear, if your
> software is GPLd , it
> > CANNOT be sold. Especially one like an IDE.
> 
> Well, I sold a GPLed tool for 12k $ recently. The
> customer had a problem, it 
> fixes it, and now the customer is willing to pay for
> more features.
> 
> > That said some parts of ANTLR Studio do come under
> the Sun Public
> > License and source will be provided with them.
> Specifically the
> > AntlrStudio.Lexer_1.0.0.jar distributed with the
> beta is under SPL.
> > You can download the source even now from netbeans
> site.
> >
> > 2.) Why dont i give the IDE for free and charge
> for services? Doesnt
> > redhat use the same business model?
> >
> > There is a difference between providing support
> for an IDE and
> > providing it for and Operating System.
> > Also AS has from the begining been designed such
> that you can
> > instantly start using it ful fledged without
> reading any manuals or
> > requiring any support. If you watch the videos you
> will see it says -
> > Time to learn ANTLR Studio - 0 minutes.
> >
> > So if you have used Eclipse before you should get
> started with using
> > AS right away. There is nothing new to learn. No
> new keyboard
> > shortcuts, etc. You dont need to modify your code
> for use with the
> > debugger. Hell, you dont even need to press
> Ctrl+Space to auto
> > complete!
> >
> > All the people who have got the beta version have
> been able to use
> > without requiring any help from me ( aside from
> the bugs they
> > encountered).
> >
> > 3.) Somebody said something like giving the
> software away with GPL
> > allows the small guy to gain advantage in the
> market.
> >
> > I will correct you on this. Yes, it does so, but
> only when the the
> > small guy is competing in a *large* market. The
> market for language
> > tools is small, very small and i wont be surpised
> if ANTLR Studio soon
> > becomes the leaading tool in the market.
> >
> > 4.) Some guys are saying that ANTLR should have
> been GPLed so that all
> > tools for it would be GPL and that i am *selling*
> the work of Terence!
> >
> > This really is the craziest message i have got.
> NO, I am NOT selling
> > Terence's work! ANTLR is still free and can be
> downloaded free of cost
> > from antlr.org. ANTLR Studio has been designed
> from the ground up by
> > me and me alone.
> >
> > The reason why ANTLR is not GPL is cause then
> every program that uses
> > it would need to be GPLed and Terence certainly
> doesnt want that.
> >
> > I had a talk with Terence regarding ANTLR Studio
> going commercial and
> > he told me that he was perfectly fine with it.
> 
> This seems to be *pragmatic* vs *moral*. Some recent
> post said that the only 
> thing that matters is the "usefulness" of the
> software. Maybe that is too 
> ambitious. I find that point of view respectful, but
> weak. In some sense, I'm 
> also pragmatic. I use only Free software because it
> provides me the warranty 
> that I will never regret: everything I learn,
> whatever customizations I do, 
> will help me improving the way I use the tool.
> Non-free software doesn't 
> allow me to improve my skills but using their rules:
> papers and keyboard 
> shortcuts, at most.
> I once used a tool called Together. I should had
> used Emacs since the 
> beginning, despite all the features Together had. Me
> as a professional cannot 
> afford going back and forward.
> 
> But anyway, if GPL makes it more difficult to make
> money, do you think 
> "closing" it will give you better results? I wish
> you luck, but it's not 
> about the GPL: you just don't care enough about the
> "4 freedoms" of ANTLR 
> Studio customers. You just discard thinking about
> that *moral* stuff unless 
> you got your monetary compensation. I hope you'd
> reconsider it should you get 
> rich ;).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> > PRASHANT
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com