Difference between revisions of "Commercial Open Source Software"

From Free Open Source Software
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 21: Line 21:
* [http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/products/editions.html SugarCRM]
* [http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/products/editions.html SugarCRM]
* [http://www.zimbra.com/products/product_editions.html Zimbra]
* [http://www.zimbra.com/products/product_editions.html Zimbra]
== From COSS to FOSS ==
Companies that thought about COSS but then decided FOSS was the better strategic decision:
* [http://www.alfresco.com/legal/licensing/faq/#faq1 Alfresco]

Revision as of 12:34, 13 July 2008

FOSS can be sold and often is, for example with support agreements including telephone and rapid patch response, or with services agreements to match configuration to an organization's process workflow. And there isn't anything wrong with that according to most FOSS licenses. Indeed, to this day the primary product of RedHat, the most commercially successful open source company ever, is the FOSS operating system Linux.

Commercial Open Source Software (COSS) often contains elements of FOSS, however it also limits availability of some enhanced functionality to closed proprietary software, thereby creating a potential path to the same old vendor lock-in, and so does not qualify as FOSS as a whole.

Dual-Licensed Software that is released under a prprietary license for administration reasons can still be FOSS if all of the software is also made available under license approved by the OSI.

COSS Software

Some examples of COSS are listed below. (Please only add links below to pages describing closed software requiring fees).