- For the University
- For external organisations
- Contact us
There is a popular myth that FOSS licences preclude the ability to commercialise software.
In fact, while FOSS licences do impact the route to commercialisation for software, WordPress, VLC Media Player, and Mozilla Firefox demonstrate that FOSS licences need not be a barrier to commercialisation.
The principles of FOSS are not intended to preclude commercial activities. Free in this context does not mean without cost, but is relevant to the following freedoms:
Very open licences that allow all four of the freedoms above.
For example: Apache, BSD and MIT licences.
Can be permissive but stipulate that any derivative software must use the same FOSS licence, usually stating that source code should be provided when sharing.
For example: the GPL suite of licences.
This is a hybrid permissive and copyleft licence that depends on the context of use, for example a distinction between whether the software is statically or dynamically linked decides if it is a copyleft or permissive licence, respectively.
For example: LGPL v3.
Modifying software under permissive licences does not restrict commercialisation options, but copyleft would undermine the value of licensing as it imposes an obligation to share the same terms resulting in recipients of your software being free to share as they see fit. This often makes a Software as a Service (SaaS) or a consultancy business model the only way to commercialise copyleft software as a service is provided to clients with no transfer of software. When using FOSS in a research project it is important to take note of the terms of the licence; if your software has potential commercial applications then a copyleft licence could limit commercialisation options.
The links below provide a useful guide when considering your own open source licences.