CNET: Open-source Alfresco shifts to GPL

Submitted by Bryan on February 22, 2007 - 8:30pm
" Alfresco, a start-up that commercializes open-source software for helping customers keep track of their digital documents, has adopted the General Public License in an effort to attract outside programmers."

Complete Story
»

I wonder why they didn't open source using the BSD license

Submitted by Sigurd Magnusson (not verified) on February 23, 2007 - 11:09pm.

I wonder why they didn't adopt the BSD license? That makes it seem like they merely want to use open source to create mass awareness and adoption but still restrict possibilities available to people using the software. Why are they so afraid? Are they not confident in the calibre of their people or product?

We open sourced SilverStripe under the BSD license because as committed and passionate users of open source for years (e.g. SilverStripe relies on PHP5, MySQL, Apache/Lighttpd) we are obliged to give back software to the community, and let them do as they please with it. Of course, open sourcing means mass market and allowing developers to contribute code, and a lot of fun and satisfaction by being able to touch and benefit lots of people with your programs, but looser licenses let you get even more than that.

I also disagree with the notion that the base system should be dual licensed; it implies that you ever get the "buggy, unsupported" core, unless you pay for the "solid, reliable" core. It feels like supermarket products sold for $2 with generic packaging and $9 with fancy. I think its far better for the core system to be free and stable, with no differences between the free download and the Fortune 500 buyer... with premium features or services to be charged where it makes commercial sense from the purchaser. Think of flickr, where you have a major community using the free service, but if you want to store or upload heaps of photos, then you pay a small, equitable fee.

To GPL or not GPL

Submitted by Bryan on February 27, 2007 - 5:23pm.

I'm not very good when it comes to license discussions, but evidently Alfresco doesn't see the GPL as restrictive as some suggest.  A couple links on Alfresco's reasoning for choosing the GPL that I've come across is from John Newton's blog as well as a FAQ from Alfresco themselves.  John Newton also hints that Matt Asay who is now connected with Alfresco may also have had some influence for using the GPL.

I read from your site with regards to why you've chosen BSD and not GPL for your CMS.  If I had to guess why Alfresco released their software under the GPL, the license change is likely more about a change in strategic planning then it is in a change in software licensing.  Perhaps Alfresco has determined it is not the software but the services provided which determines the competitive advantages for a company.  I think Alfresco's move to the GPL is a business decision they have chosen to make in order to be the type of company it wants to be (more services and less product) as well as the type of developers it wants to attract.  This of course is pure speculation by observation as I have no ties to Alfresco beyond reading their blogs and forums.

I'm not aware of too many open source companies that are really making significant profit from the software itself.  Instead they seem to be making their money through the services provided.  Yes, everyone has to release their code under the GPL if they redistribute the software which sort of levels the playing field.  However, the competitive advantage for GPL software is what you do with the software and not the code itself.

I do agree with you about the dual-license fiasco you talk about.  Dual licenses give me headaches.