FLOSS and licensing Anonymous 07/31/2017 (Mon) 16:22:43 No. 10510 del
(9.07 KB 261x202 annoyed_tom.jpg)
Hello /tech/,

I'm not so familiar with software licenses so I started reading about the subject. At one point the question 'How does one profit from floss software?' popped in my head and these are some articles I came upon (quite outdated, but they still have a point). So GPL prevents companies from making proprietary software with your piece of software. BSD, on the other hand, does not (that's the case with Apple's kernel). Turns out the only way a company can profit from GPL license is by donations, offering support, teaching or dual licensing. Dual licensing seems like the most used option.

https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5935
http://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-the-gpl-sucks/

>But there is a net effect on software development. Who makes money off GPL code? We go back to Novell and Red Hat, who test and package this software. And we see a trend–GPL code helps software testers make money. It helps QA people. It helps the people who answer the support phones. It helps everybody except software developers. Oh, maybe Google will pay them a salary as a goodwill gesture. But it’s really, really hard to make money from developing FOSS. You can make money supporting it. You can make money testing it. But no money developing it.

So my question is - does free software actually benefit the developer?