Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but a thriving

market for Free Software-oriented business models also exists. There is the

traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.

Many companies make substantial revenue

from this model. Some choose this model because they have

found that for higher-end hardware, the profit made from proprietary

software licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is in the hardware,

but it is essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and

the users be allowed to have unfettered access to it. Free Software, and

GPL'd software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary

versions of the same software will not exist to compete on their hardware)

is the right choice.

For example, charging a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,

when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some

profit. Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their

Web site, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their

box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under

a Free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.

\medskip

However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts

are the most widely used models for GPL'd software. The GPL is

central to their success, because it ensures that the code base

remains common, and that large and small companies are on equal

footing for access to the technology. Consider, for example, the GNU

Compiler Collection (GCC). Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the

early 1990s, was able to grow steadily simply by providing services

for GCC --- mostly consisting of new ports of GCC to different or new,

embedded targets. Eventually, Cygnus was so successful that

it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a profitable division.

However, there are very small companies that compete in

this space. Because the code-base is protected by the GPL, it creates and

demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and

improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their

work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target

platforms. Nearly all the changes fold back into the standard

versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.

\medskip

\label{Proprietary Relicensing}

A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is

proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for

Some companies use this to their

financial advantage with regard to a GPL'd code base. The standard

version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.

However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for

a fee.

This business model is at best problematic and at worst predatory because it means that the GPL'd code

base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer

Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to

the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the

software as Free Software. Indeed, the company will surely use such code

contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees.

\section{Ongoing Compliance}

GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter --- much simpler than

typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs. Usually, the most

difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one

that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support. Certainly

complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer

headaches than proprietary license compliance.

For those who go into the business of distributing {\em modified}

versions of GPL'd software, the burden is a bit higher, but not by

much. The glib answer is that by releasing the whole product as Free

Software, it is always easy to comply with the GPL. However,

admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software

systems are built using both proprietary and GPL'd components that are

not legally derivative works of each other. Sometimes, it is easier simply to

improve existing GPL'd application than to start from scratch. In

exchange for that benefit, the license requires that the modifier gives

back to the commons that made the work easier in the first place. It is a

reasonable trade-off and a way to help build a better world while also

making a profit.

Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need

assistance in complying with the GPL. You can contact FSF's GPL

Compliance Labs at $<$licensing@fsf.org$>$.

%FIXME-LATER: should have \tutorialpart

If you are particularly interested in matters of GPL compliance, we

recommend the next two parts, which include both recommendations on good

compliance and compliance case studies.

% =====================================================================

% END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION