Hubbry Logo
Multi-licensingMulti-licensingMain
Open search
Multi-licensing
Community hub
Multi-licensing
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Multi-licensing
Multi-licensing
Multi-licensing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Multi-licensing is the practice of distributing software under two or more different sets of terms and conditions. This may mean multiple different software licenses or sets of licenses. Prefixes may be used to indicate the number of licenses used, e.g. dual-licensed for software licensed under two different licenses.

When software is multi-licensed, recipients can typically choose the terms under which they want to use or distribute the software, but the simple presence of multiple licenses in a software package or library does not necessarily indicate that the recipient can freely choose one or the other. In some cases, especially when the software has multiple origins, all the accompanied licenses apply at the same time. The applicability of the different licenses has to be individually checked.[according to whom?] The distributor may or may not apply a fee to either option.[citation needed] The two usual motivations for multi-licensing are license compatibility[1] and market segregation based business models.[2]

Business models

[edit]

Multi-licensing is commonly done to support free software business models in a commercial environment. In this scenario, one option is a proprietary software license, which allows the possibility of creating proprietary applications derived from it, while the other license is a copyleft free software/open-source license, thus requiring any derived work to be released under the same license. The copyright holder of the software then typically provides the free version of the software at little or no cost, and profits by selling proprietary licenses to commercial operations looking to incorporate the software into their own business. This model can be compared to shareware.[3][4]

Since in most cases, only the copyright holder can change the licensing terms of a software, multi licensing is mostly used by companies that wholly own the software which they are licensing. Confusion may arise when a person outside the company creates additional source code, using the less restrictive license. Because the company with the official code is not the copyright holder of the additional code, they may not legally include this new work in their more restrictively licensed version. Companies may require outside developers agree to a contributor license agreement before accepting their work in the official code-base and source code repositories.[5]

Multi licensing is used by the copyright holders of some free software packages advertising their willingness to distribute using both a copyleft free software license and a non-free software license. The latter license typically offers users the software as proprietary software or offers third parties the source code without copyleft provisions. Copyright holders are exercising the monopoly they're provided under copyright in this scenario, but also use multi licensing to distinguish the rights and freedoms different recipients receive.

Such licensing allows the holder to offer customizations and early releases, generate other derivative works or grant rights to third parties to redistribute proprietary versions all while offering everyone a free version of the software. Sharing the package as copyleft free software can benefit the copyright holder by receiving contributions from users and hackers of the free software community. These contributions can be the support of a dedicated user community, word of mouth marketing or modifications that are made available as stipulated by a copyleft license. However, a copyright holder's commitment to elude copyleft provisions and advertise proprietary redistributions risks losing confidence and support from free software users.[6][7]

Examples of multi-licensed software include Oracle's NetBeans IDE, MySQL AB's database, Asterisk, Oracle Corporation's Berkeley DB, Modelio, ZeroC's Ice, Magnolia CMS, JUCE, wolfSSL,[8] and Qt Software's Qt development toolkit.

Description on one specific example to illustrate multi-licensing: Oracle MySQL comes in various editions: MySQL Enterprise Edition[9] is a commercial edition, hence to be purchased. The license is only offered as a subscription, named MySQL Enterprise Edition Subscription. The same applies for MySQL Standard Edition (MySQL Standard Edition Subscription) and MySQL Cluster CGE (MySQL Cluster Carrier Grade Edition Subscription). The other editions, such as the MySQL Classic Edition or MySQL Community Edition, are free to use with some restrictions. For instance, the MySQL Community Edition is a freely downloadable version, available under the GPL license and is supported by a community of open source developers.[10]

Single-vendor commercial open source business model

[edit]

The term single-vendor commercial open source was coined by Dirk Riehle in 2010,[11][12] and has later been further popularized by other scholars, such as Simon R. B. Berdal.[13]

According to Riehle:

Single-vendor commercial open source firms build their business around an open source software project that they fully control, typically by having developed the software and never having shared control with third parties. This is done by owning the full copyright to the code and related intellectual property such as patents and trademarks... Typically, the free open source form is provided under a reciprocal license like the GPL to drive adoption but stall possible competitors. Paid-for versions of the software are then provided under a commercial license like traditional software vendors do. This is also known as the dual-license strategy of commercial open source.[11]

In contrast to traditional open source projects, a single-vendor commercial open source project is controlled by exactly one stakeholder with the purpose of commercially exploiting it.[11] In this context, the open source community is less engaged in the development of core functionality, as they typically are in conventional (pure) open source projects. As the then CEO Mårten Mikos of MySQL said in an interview:

The depth of the contributions varies by product and situation. The deeper you go into the core of the database engine, the more difficult it is for somebody to contribute because it takes five years to learn. If you build something on the outskirts of the kernel - some tool or function that you add on top of it - then that is much easier because there's less risk that you will mess up the whole product. But something great can emerge out of many tiny-looking contributions. It's analogous to how, in economic development, microloans can have such a huge impact - each entry is minimal, but when you multiply it by the number of people who are involved, it grows massive. It starts getting a momentum of its own..[14]

Hence, the community of multi-license software as a rule includes employees of the code-owning firm, as well as strategic partners that have vested interest in the software. As Riehle notes, In single-vendor open source, almost all of the core product development work is carried out by the commercial firm, with occasional contributions from the community.[11]

As Berdal notes, the governance of the open source community becomes a key business management process in this context: As such, it needs to be aligned with other business activities. Governance models of dual-licensed OSS editions may therefore display a tendency towards commercial bias. To prevent the community from being provoked or alienated it may therefore seem imperative to balance commercial inclinations against “open” interests.[13] This is by no means an easy task. As Berdal demonstrated through a case study of SugarCRM, this commercial open source software (COSS) business model can trigger substantial friction points, which can eventually lead to pure open source forks (table adapted from Berdal, Table 3, page 75[13]):

Friction point COSS/SugarCRM perspectives Opposing FOSS perspectives
Copyright assignment Precondition for dual licensing, without which the business model would not be commercially sustainable. Disincentive to contribute because of fears of going (partially) private.

Free Software purists: “Immoral”.

Withholding of value driving functionality from Sugar CE 1) Pre-emptive competitive advantage against OSS clones,

2) wider scope for price discrimination and product differentiation for commercial editions, and 3) stronger incentives for Sugar CE users to migrate to a commercial edition.

"Crippleware" / damaged good, "open core". Disincentive to contribute because of lacking assurances against potentially exclusive proprietary use.
"Powered by SugarCRM" logo 1) Official stance: Legitimate author attribution in recognition of invested work.

Not confirmed, but highly plausible: 2) brand promotion, and 3) thwart forking attempts / stifle unsolicited external code reuse.

"Badgeware". Violation of basic FOSS principles, especially when coupled with the SugarCRM Trademark Policy.
"Closed" governance practices, even restrictive by COSS standards 1) Need for managerial control to ensure that customers’ needs are efficiently met.

2) Speculative: Diminish the influence of FOSS enthusiasts and vigilantes, who could interfere with a commercially guided development process.

Overly restrictive, lack of procedural fairness. No real influence over shared Sugar CE code base.

De facto relegation to work on small-scale peripheral complements, which not need to be open source.

Preferential treatment of commercially affiliated community constituents and third parties Reasonable supplementary approach of differentiation to utilize and enhance commercially vested interests in SugarCRM’s product platform. This is 1) to strengthen the firm’s sales channels through a co-evolution of capabilities with partners, and to 2) stimulate demand driven customization and development of modular complements (extensions, plug-ins etc.), 3) triggering network effects which increase the overall value of the product platform. Deficient distributional fairness (in terms of underprovided focus and priority). Perception of being kept out of the loop.

Only a few months after these friction points were observed, a new fork of the SugarCRM Community Edition was announced.

License compatibility

[edit]
Main article: License compatibility

Source:[15]

A second use of multi-licensing with free software is for license compatibility,[1] allowing code from differently licensed free software projects to be combined, or to provide users the preference to pick a license.

Examples include the source code of Mozilla Application Suite and previously Mozilla Thunderbird and Mozilla Firefox, that have used tri-licensing under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) 1.1, GNU General Public License (GPL) 2.0 or GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 2.1[16] before the latter upgraded to GPL-compatible MPL 2.0, making the tri-licensing unnecessary.[17] Other examples are Perl, which is dual-licensed under the GPL or Artistic License,[18] and Ruby, whose license contains explicit GPL dual licensing.

Market segregation in proprietary software

[edit]

Multi-licensing is also used by distributors of non-free software. Sometimes this is done to proprietary software to segregate a market. By splitting customers into multiple categories such as home users, professional users, and academic users, copyright holders can set different prices for each group. However, among proprietary software companies, it is more common to release a "home edition" and a "professional edition" of a given product, which differ by the software and software features included, not just the license.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Multi-licensing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Multi-licensing is the practice of distributing a work, such as software or documentation, under multiple distinct licenses simultaneously, allowing recipients to choose the terms under which they use, modify, or distribute it. This approach, often referred to interchangeably with dual-licensing when involving exactly two options, contrasts with single-licensing by providing flexibility to accommodate diverse user needs, such as compatibility with other projects or commercial requirements. In most cases, the licenses are offered on an "OR" basis, meaning users select one set of terms, though rare "AND" scenarios require compliance with all applicable licenses. In , multi-licensing serves to broaden adoption and mitigate compatibility issues between restrictive licenses like General Public License (GPL) and permissive ones like the . Developers may offer a for community use alongside a commercial for integrations, enabling revenue generation while maintaining an core. Notable examples include , distributed by under the GPLv2 or a commercial to allow embedding in closed-source products without GPL obligations, and Qt, which provides the LGPL for development and paid licenses for commercial scenarios requiring fewer restrictions. Another case is , licensed under both the OpenSSL License and the SSLeay License to ensure interoperability with GPL v2 codebases. This strategy enhances project viability by encouraging contributions from varied ecosystems but requires copyright holders to retain full ownership, often through contributor license agreements (CLAs), to grant multiple licensing options. While it promotes wider usage and , multi-licensing can introduce legal complexities, such as ensuring all licenses are compatible and clearly communicated to avoid disputes. Overall, it balances with strategic business interests in the .

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Concept

Multi-licensing refers to the practice of distributing the same software under two or more distinct licenses simultaneously, enabling users to select the license that aligns with their specific requirements, such as an open source license for community development or a proprietary one for commercial applications. This approach allows copyright holders to retain full ownership of the intellectual property while offering varied terms of use, modification, and distribution. In practice, users choose one license per instance of the software or for any derivative works they create, ensuring compliance with the selected terms without affecting other users' choices. The primary purposes of multi-licensing include enhancing the commercial viability of projects by providing licensing options to paying customers, thereby generating while fostering a broad community of non-commercial users. It also facilitates across projects with otherwise incompatible licenses by offering alternative permissive or compatible terms, reducing barriers to integration in diverse ecosystems. Additionally, multi-licensing segregates user markets, directing free users toward versions that may include reciprocal obligations (e.g., disclosure) while reserving unrestricted commercial use for those opting for licenses. In contrast to single licensing, which enforces uniform restrictions or permissions across all users, multi-licensing introduces flexibility in compliance and obligations, allowing tailored adoption without compromising the developer's control over the . This strategy, particularly in contexts, was notably analyzed in relation to single-vendor models by Dirk Riehle in 2009.

Types and Variations

Multi-licensing encompasses various forms based on the number of licenses offered and their structural application. Dual-licensing, the most common variant, involves offering software under exactly two licenses, typically a such as License (GPL) and a permissive or alternative. This structure allows users to select the license that best fits their needs, such as open source developers opting for the GPL while commercial entities choose the option to avoid obligations. Tri-licensing or poly-licensing extends this to three or more licenses, often to enhance compatibility across diverse ecosystems. A prominent historical example is the tri-licensing under the 1.1 (MPL), GPL, and Lesser GPL (LGPL) for projects, allowing users to choose based on integration requirements. In such arrangements, the licenses are disjunctive, meaning recipients apply only the selected one, facilitating broader adoption by accommodating different strengths. Variations in multi-licensing also arise from the nature of the combined licenses. Reciprocal combinations pair licenses that require works to be shared under similar terms, promoting contributions but potentially limiting use. Non-reciprocal variations, conversely, mix permissive licenses like the MIT or Apache 2.0, which impose fewer restrictions on redistribution without mandating source disclosure. Additionally, some multi-licensing includes source-available options that fall short of full criteria, such as the Business Source License (BSL), often dual-licensed alongside a permissive to balance accessibility with commercial control. Structurally, multi-licensing can be elective or concurrent. In elective models, users choose one license from the offered set (a disjunctive or "OR" arrangement), providing flexibility for varied use cases. Concurrent models require compliance with all licenses simultaneously (a conjunctive or "AND" arrangement), typically used to ensure compatibility when combining components under multiple permissive terms, as seen in projects like under its dual licenses. These structures help mitigate compatibility issues by allowing tailored licensing paths.

Historical Development

Origins

The practice of multi-licensing originated in the mid-1990s amid growing tensions between the ideological foundations of and the practical demands of commercial software development. The (FSF), established in 1985 by , championed licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL) to protect users' freedoms, but these restrictions often deterred proprietary integration by businesses. The (OSI), founded in 1998, promoted a broader spectrum of permissive licenses to facilitate commercial adoption, highlighting the need for flexible strategies that could support both community collaboration and revenue generation. Early implementations focused on dual-licensing as a foundational form of multi-licensing, allowing software to be distributed under a for non-commercial use and a proprietary license for fee-paying customers. A pioneering example was , a interpreter developed by and released in 1994 under both the GPL and the Aladdin Free Public License (AFPL), which permitted commercial distribution without obligations. This model enabled widespread adoption in open source projects while allowing Aladdin Enterprises to license it commercially, setting a precedent for balancing accessibility with monetization. By the late 1990s, dual-licensing gained traction as companies recognized its potential to drive community contributions while securing income streams. Trolltech (now part of The Qt Company) began offering its Qt GUI framework under dual licenses in 2000, providing the GPL version to open source developers and a commercial license to proprietary vendors seeking to avoid source code disclosure. Similarly, MySQL AB introduced dual-licensing for its database system that same year, distributing it under the GPL for free software projects and a proprietary license for enterprise users. These initiatives addressed core motivations: enabling firms to fund development through commercial sales while inviting external improvements under open terms, thus sustaining growth in the burgeoning open source ecosystem. The conceptual framework of multi-licensing, encompassing offerings beyond two licenses, solidified in academic discourse during the early . Mikko Välimäki's analysis detailed how open source firms leveraged dual-licensing to create viable business models, emphasizing its role in mitigating constraints for commercial applications. This strategy's evolution reflected broader adoption drivers, including the desire to attract contributors without compromising proprietary revenue, paving the way for more sophisticated multi-licensing arrangements in commercial .

Key Milestones

In the early 2000s, multi-licensing gained prominence through 's adoption of a dual-licensing model in 2000, offering the database software under the GNU General Public License (GPL) for open-source use alongside proprietary commercial licenses for enterprise customers seeking to avoid obligations. This approach, which formalized revenue generation from , contributed to MySQL's growth and ultimately influenced its acquisition by in 2008 and subsequent integration into following Oracle's purchase of Sun in 2010. A notable expansion occurred between 2001 and 2004 when much of the codebase, including components for the emerging browser, was relicensed under a tri-license comprising the (MPL), GPL, and Lesser GPL (LGPL). This shift from the original MPL and Public License aimed to enhance interoperability with other open-source projects, particularly those under GPL, by allowing contributors and users greater flexibility in combining code without license conflicts. During the , Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) emerged as a standardized mechanism for managing contributions to multi-licensed projects, enabling project stewards to relicense code as needed for compatibility or commercial purposes. The Apache Software Foundation's Individual CLA (ICLA), in use since the foundation's early days but widely adopted across ecosystems by the mid-, exemplified this trend by granting the foundation rights to distribute contributions under the or compatible terms while protecting contributors' interests. In the late 2010s, poly-licensing proliferated among libraries, particularly in the ecosystem, where dual permissive licenses like MIT and 2.0 became common to maximize reusability and avoid compatibility issues with diverse downstream applications. For instance, numerous modules adopted this dual approach to facilitate integration into both open-source and proprietary projects, reflecting a broader shift toward pluralism in modular software development. These milestones underscored multi-licensing's role in balancing community collaboration with commercial viability.

Business Models and Strategies

Commercial Open Source Approaches

Multi-licensing enables companies to distribute (OSS) under permissive or licenses for community use while offering or commercial licenses for businesses seeking to integrate the software into closed-source products without reciprocal obligations. This core strategy, often termed dual licensing, allows developers to leverage the OSS model to build a user base and gather improvements from contributors, while monetizing through alternative licensing paths that bypass restrictions like source code disclosure requirements in licenses such as the (GPL). For instance, in the case of , Sleepycat Software (now ) released the database under the Sleepycat Public License alongside a commercial license for embedding, effectively using the terms as a "poison pill" to drive revenue from enterprise users. Key revenue streams in multi-licensing models include fees for commercial licenses that permit proprietary use, subscriptions for enterprise-grade features or enhanced support, and contracts for hosting, maintenance, or customization services. exemplifies this approach by offering its database under the GPL for projects and a separate commercial license from for applications where GPL terms would impose unwanted obligations, generating income through licensing sales and associated support packages. Similarly, dual licensing sustains profitability by allowing firms to charge for versions that avoid OSS copyleft constraints, with studies indicating that approximately 10% of OSS-dependent companies adopt this model to balance community engagement with commercial viability. Hosting and support contracts further amplify earnings, as seen in services layered atop the free OSS core to provide reliability and scalability for production environments. For developers and companies, multi-licensing attracts contributions by maintaining an accessible OSS version, while Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) protect commercial interests by granting the project owners rights to relicense submitted code under terms. CLAs ensure that contributions can be incorporated into paid offerings without violating the original OSS license, fostering collaborative development in multi-contributor projects and enabling firms to build upon input for differentiated products. This mechanism supports ongoing innovation, as feedback enhances beyond in-house efforts alone, ultimately enlarging the user base and establishing market standards. Despite these advantages, multi-licensing faces challenges such as potential community backlash if perceived as exploitative or "open washing," where commercial motives overshadow genuine , leading to reduced contributions or project forks. Restrictive OSS licenses in dual setups can deter participation by signaling limited trust in the , while unclear terms risk legal disputes over applicability and contributor rights. To mitigate these, companies must maintain transparent communication and balanced licensing to sustain both community goodwill and commercial .

Single-Vendor Models

In single-vendor models of multi-licensing, a single company retains ownership of all copyrights and controls the development and distribution of the software, offering it under an , such as the GNU General Public License (GPL), to encourage adoption and contributions, while simultaneously providing a commercial to customers who wish to avoid the obligations of terms, such as mandatory disclosure. This dual-licensing strategy enables the vendor to leverage principles for widespread use and innovation while reserving commercial exploitation rights for revenue generation. A key example is , maintained by , which distinguishes between its Community Edition—distributed under the GPL for free community use—and its Enterprise Edition, launched in 2006 as a proprietary subscription service that includes advanced features, monitoring tools, and support without imposing GPL restrictions. This structure allows Oracle to build a large user base through the open version while monetizing enterprise needs via the paid alternative. The advantages of this model include the vendor's complete control over forks and the project roadmap, which facilitates targeted and prevents unauthorized divergences that could undermine commercial offerings, as well as streamlined contributor management by requiring assignments or relicensing agreements for any external input. These elements contribute to lower operational costs, such as reduced marketing expenses relative to , by harnessing community feedback for product improvement without ceding strategic direction. Drawbacks arise from the heavy reliance on the vendor's ongoing sustainability, as users and the ecosystem become dependent on the company's commitment to development; if the firm encounters financial difficulties or shifts priorities, the project risks abandonment or stagnation, even though the code remains open source. This centralization can also limit broader community-driven evolution compared to multi-vendor scenarios.

License Compatibility

In open source software development, license compatibility refers to the ability to combine code from different projects without violating the terms of their respective licenses. Permissive licenses, such as the , allow easy integration with other licenses because they impose minimal restrictions on derivative works, permitting redistribution under any terms. In contrast, copyleft licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL) enforce stricter requirements, mandating that any combined work be distributed under the same copyleft terms, which often prevents seamless mixing with non-copyleft code unless relicensing occurs. Multi-licensing addresses these incompatibilities by offering the software under multiple license options simultaneously, enabling users to select the most compatible one for their needs. For instance, a project initially released under the GPL can be multi-licensed to include the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), allowing it to be used as a in applications without triggering full GPL obligations on the entire program. This approach facilitates code integration across diverse ecosystems, as seen in historical efforts like Mozilla's relicensing of its codebase to improve . Key techniques for implementing multi-licensing include relicensing existing code with the consent of all contributors, often facilitated through Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) that grant project maintainers the rights to relicense contributions. Another common method is tri-licensing, where software is offered under the MPL, GPL, and LGPL concurrently, providing flexibility for file-level (MPL), strong (GPL), or library-friendly terms (LGPL) to cover various use cases. As a result, multi-licensing enables the creation of larger, more collaborative projects by allowing the combination of disparate codebases that would otherwise be isolated due to restrictions, thereby reducing fragmentation in development. One significant legal hurdle in multi-licensing arises from contributor , particularly the need for robust Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) to enable relicensing options. CLAs typically require contributors to grant irrevocable, perpetual licenses for their code, allowing project maintainers to offer the software under multiple terms, such as both open-source and licenses. Without such agreements, contributors retain control over their contributions, potentially withholding consent for relicensing and leading to disputes, project forks, or even litigation if a maintainer attempts to change licensing without unanimous approval. Enforcement challenges further complicate multi-licensing, stemming from ambiguities in how users select or interpret applicable licenses, which can result in claims. For instance, if a user chooses a permissive license like MIT but inadvertently violates terms from a dual-licensed GPL option, the project owner may pursue , though proving the chosen 's applicability can be contentious. These issues are exacerbated by varying jurisdictional interpretations of copyright law; in the , open-source licenses are increasingly treated as enforceable contracts under principles, while in the , and stricter database protections under directives like the (96/9/EC) may impose additional obligations on relicensing. Prior to the rise of AI-specific concerns, multi-licensed code faced heightened risks from patent trolls, or non-practicing entities (NPEs), who exploit the public availability of open-source code to assert infringement claims. A notable example is the 2019 lawsuit by Rothschild Patent Imaging against the GNOME Foundation over its open-source Shotwell software, where the troll alleged patent violation in image distribution features, ultimately resolved through invalidation efforts but highlighting vulnerabilities in publicly inspectable codebases. Additionally, anti-competitive concerns have emerged in open source licensing practices. To mitigate these risks, project maintainers should prioritize clear of licensing options, including explicit user choice mechanisms and compatibility notes to reduce . Regular legal audits of contributions and licenses help identify potential infringements early, while incorporating irrevocable grants in CLAs provides broader protection against trolls. Techniques like compatibility wrappers, as discussed in analyses, can further aid enforcement without altering core terms.

Applications and Examples

Prominent Software Projects

exemplifies multi-licensing through its dual GPL and commercial model, which originated in the late 1990s when founders David Axmark and Monty Widenius adopted it to balance open-source accessibility with revenue generation. The project switched to the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 in 2000, allowing free use and modification while offering a commercial license that waived GPL requirements for integrations. Following ' acquisition of in 2008 and 's purchase of Sun in 2010, maintained this dual structure but introduced restrictions in OEM agreements, such as prohibiting modifications or use of forks like in commercial deployments. Qt, a cross-platform framework for GUI development, has employed multi-licensing since its initial public release in 1995 under commercial and FreeQt terms, evolving to include GPL version 2 in 2000 and LGPL version 2.1 in 2009 to broaden adoption across ecosystems like Unix, Windows, and embedded systems. This approach enables developers to build applications without platform-specific code, supporting object-oriented tools for interfaces in diverse environments. The LGPL variant allows linking with code while requiring source availability for Qt modifications, fostering both open-source contributions and commercial use without full disclosure obligations. NetBeans, an (IDE) for , adopted dual licensing under the (CDDL) and GPL version 2 with Classpath exception in October 2007, as announced by . Initially developed by Sun, the project transitioned under 's ownership after the 2010 acquisition. In 2016, Oracle donated NetBeans to the Apache Software Foundation, where it has since been relicensed under the Apache License 2.0 and is known as Apache NetBeans. Prior to this, the dual model supported modular Java application building, with the CDDL permitting file-level copyleft and the GPL option aligning with broader open-source ecosystems to facilitate plugin development and IDE extensibility. Mozilla projects, including components of and Thunderbird, historically utilized tri-licensing under the (MPL) version 1.1, GPL version 2, and LGPL version 2.1 from 2001 to 2012 to enhance compatibility. This structure allowed integration with GPL-licensed code for distribution under GPL terms and use in LGPL libraries without strict enforcement on derivatives. In 2012, Mozilla adopted the MPL version 2.0 as the primary license, which maintains compatibility with GPL and LGPL while simplifying the licensing arrangement. For 's rendering engine and Thunderbird's email handling modules, the licensing has supported web standards implementation while accommodating varied contributor preferences. These multi-licensing strategies have driven success in community growth and commercial adoption across the projects. For , the open GPL version spurred developer contributions and widespread use in open-source stacks, while commercial licenses generated for sustained development, enabling the database to power millions of installations. Qt's licensing flexibility expanded its community through free access for non-proprietary projects and attracted commercial users via indemnity and support, powering applications in automotive and mobile sectors. NetBeans' dual model aligned it with distributions, boosting plugin ecosystems and developer adoption without alienating proprietary toolchains. Mozilla's licensing increased code reusability, encouraging contributions from diverse projects and facilitating broader distribution of and Thunderbird binaries. Overall, these approaches balanced collaborative innovation with business viability, enhancing project longevity and impact.

Industry Applications

Multi-licensing strategies enable software distributors to tailor access and terms to diverse industry needs, fostering while supporting models through differentiated offerings for and enterprise users. In sectors requiring robust, scalable solutions, this approach allows open-source cores to attract developers while commercial variants provide enhanced features, support, and compliance assurances. In mobile and embedded systems, particularly automotive and IoT applications, multi-licensing supports proprietary integrations by offering both open-source and commercial options. Qt, a cross-platform framework, exemplifies this through its dual model: the Community Edition under GPL/LGPL for open-source compliance, and commercial licenses that permit closed-source development without redistribution requirements. This flexibility has enabled Qt's widespread use in automotive human-machine interfaces (HMIs) and IoT devices, where Device Creation licenses allow manufacturers to embed in hardware like systems and connected sensors, ensuring IP protection and vendor support. For , dual licensing under permissive and terms promotes flexible embedding in both open and projects. Libraries like historically utilized a dual MIT/GPL v2 license, which allowed developers to integrate the into commercial websites under the more lenient MIT terms, avoiding GPL's source disclosure mandates for closed-source applications. This arrangement simplified adoption in dynamic web environments, enabling seamless use across diverse site architectures while contributing to jQuery's ubiquity in front-end development before its transition to MIT-only in 2012. Multi-licensing aids market segregation by delineating access for hobbyist and professional users, mitigating revenue cannibalization in open-source ecosystems. Under this model, the holder offers an like LGPL for non-commercial or community use, attracting individual developers and educational entities at no cost, while reserving commercial licenses for businesses seeking proprietary rights and avoiding restrictions. This strategy ensures free access for hobbyists fosters innovation and user growth, whereas paid options target enterprises needing customization without compliance burdens, sustaining vendor viability. Tailored multi-licensing reduces barriers in regulated industries like by providing commercial terms that include support, indemnification, and compliance features alongside open-source alternatives. For instance, 's dual GPL/commercial model allows financial firms to leverage the free Community Edition for development while opting for Enterprise Edition subscriptions that offer advanced monitoring, patches, and 24/7 support essential for high-stakes environments. , a major wealth management provider, adopted Enterprise to achieve 30% performance gains and cost reductions in , benefiting from the commercial license's reliability in a sector demanding regulatory adherence. This approach balances cost-effective innovation with the assurances required for audited, secure operations.

AI and Emerging Technology Impacts

Multi-licensing strategies for AI training datasets have emerged to navigate complexities in generative AI models, often employing permissive licenses for purposes while imposing restrictive terms on model outputs or commercial derivatives. For instance, permissive licenses such as CC-BY, MIT, or 2.0 enable broad incorporation of datasets into training pipelines, allowing reproduction and modification without stringent conditions, whereas restrictive licenses like CC-BY-NC or GPL may prohibit commercial use or require share-alike obligations that propagate to outputs. This dual approach addresses concerns by permitting non-commercial on diverse data while safeguarding creators' against unauthorized monetization of derived works, though integration challenges arise when multi-licensed datasets lead to "restrictive cascade effects" in 41% of composite cases, where the most limiting terms dominate the overall usage . From 2023 to 2025, a notable trend in AI tools has been the adoption of source-available licenses like the Business Source License (BSL) to balance community access with commercial sustainability, particularly in AI-integrated platforms. EMQX, a leading broker supporting AI-driven real-time applications, transitioned to BSL 1.1 in May 2025 for its unified platform, allowing free non-production use and single-node production while restricting multi-node commercial deployments until reversion to Apache 2.0 after four years per version. This shift reflects broader post-2020 developments where companies prioritize controlled openness to fund AI innovations, as seen in regulatory scrutiny over data provenance highlighted by the AI Now Institute in 2023. Dual-licensing in AI environments introduces significant risks, including potential infringement from the of licensed in model outputs, as analyzed in 2025 legal frameworks. Generative AI trained on dual-licensed codebases—such as those under both permissive MIT and GPL—may output substantially similar snippets, triggering rights violations under law if the outputs exceed thresholds. The U.S. Office's 2025 report notes that model weights themselves can embody protectable expressions from data, heightening liability for developers who fail to segregate license terms, with infringement requiring proof of and of constituent elements. These pitfalls underscore the need for robust contributor agreements to mitigate disputes in AI generation. Adaptations through poly-licensing—offering multiple license options for AI frameworks—enable developers to reconcile openness with protection by tailoring terms to use cases. For example, frameworks may provide permissive options like Apache 2.0 for research and non-commercial fine-tuning alongside or restrictive variants for enterprise deployments, ensuring revenue streams while fostering ecosystem growth. Finnegan's 2025 analysis highlights how such strategies allow IP owners to retain control over core innovations, such as training algorithms, amid evolving AI regulations, promoting innovation without fully exposing sensitive assets. This approach has gained traction in updated licensing models like OpenMDW 1.0, which unifies rights across model components to avoid fragmentation while permitting unrestricted outputs.

Ecosystem-Specific Studies

A large-scale empirical study conducted in 2024 examined license usage across multiple package managers, including for the JavaScript ecosystem, revealing that 0.81% of packages utilize multi-licensing. Common combinations in often involve the Eclipse Public License 2.0 (EPL-2.0) paired with the GNU General Public License version 2.0 (GPL-2.0-only), accounting for 64.84% of multi-licensed cases, which can complicate dependency chains by introducing restrictions alongside permissive terms. These mixes highlight potential compatibility issues in projects, where transitive dependencies amplify risks of license conflicts during integration. In the Python ecosystem, the same 2024 analysis of PyPI found a higher rate of 4.14% multi-licensed packages, particularly relevant for (ML) libraries that rely on extensive dependency networks. A complementary 2023 study on PyPI incompatibilities noted that while multi-licensing remains uncommon (observed in only isolated cases among sampled packages), it offers potential compatibility gains by allowing flexible reuse in ML workflows, such as combining Apache-2.0 with . However, gaps in Contributor License Agreement (CLA) adoption persist, with many ML projects lacking standardized contributor terms, leading to unresolved ownership issues in multi-licensed contributions. Key findings from these studies indicate an increased prevalence of multi-licensing and scrutiny post-2023, driven by heightened needs amid rising malicious package incidents—over 512,000 detected since late 2023. changes appeared in 6% of release versions across ecosystems, often to address or compliance, but challenges in automated scanning arise from variant expressions and multi-license complexity, resulting in incompatibility detection rates below 8% in tools like LiDetector. Implications include the need for enhanced tools to manage multi-licensed components; FOSSology, an open-source compliance platform, is recommended for scanning and reporting on license combinations in dependency chains, supporting ecosystems like and PyPI through automated detection and policy enforcement. These ecosystem insights align with broader AI-related licensing shifts, where multi-licensing facilitates model sharing but introduces similar scanning hurdles.

References

  1. https://debricked.com/blog/oss-licenses-part-6-license-compatibility-and-dual-licensing/
  2. https://fossa.com/blog/dual-licensing-models-explained/
  3. https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/dual-license-open-source-commercial/
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016762451100028X
  5. https://dirkriehle.com/publications/2020-selected/single-vendor-open-source-firms-and-their-intellectual-property-strategies/
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24136559_Dual_licensing_in_open_source_software_markets
  7. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1007/s10664-020-09936-2
  8. https://dirkriehle.com/2009/07/18/the-intellectual-property-rights-imperative-of-single-vendor-open-source/
  9. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html
  10. https://www.blackduck.com/blog/software-licensing-decisions-consider-dual-licensing.html
  11. https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/
  12. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/
  13. https://opensource.org/blog/permissive-and-copyleft-are-not-antonyms
  14. https://www.openssl.org/source/license-openssl-ssleay.txt
  15. https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/does-dual-licensing-threaten-free-software
  16. http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/08/thoughts-about-dual-licensing-open.html
  17. https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5100
  18. https://exadel.com/news/old-reliable-mysql-history/
  19. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1261644
  20. https://heathermeeker.com/2018/06/24/revisiting-the-open-source-business-model/
  21. https://blogs.oracle.com/mysql/post/mysql-retrospective-the-middle-years
  22. https://www-archive.mozilla.org/about/history
  23. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/historical/
  24. https://www.traverselegal.com/blog/dual-licensing-open-source/
  25. https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html
  26. https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.pdf
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346857845_From_One_to_Hundreds_Multi-Licensing_in_the_JavaScript_Ecosystem
  28. https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17952_01/mysql-8.0-en/introduction.html
  29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2011.07.001
  30. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/open-source-guides/starting-an-open-source-project
  31. https://www.state-machine.com/doc/Riehle-Open-Source_Commercial.pdf
  32. https://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/
  33. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/mysql-introduces-community-server-database/
  34. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
  35. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.en.html
  36. https://www-archive.mozilla.org/mpl/relicensing-faq.html
  37. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/how-open-source-foundations-protect-the-licensing-integrity-of-open-source-projects
  38. https://www.mend.io/blog/license-compatibility/
  39. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/cla/
  40. https://google.github.io/opencasebook/ambiguity/
  41. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201307/20130708ATT69346/20130708ATT69346EN.pdf
  42. https://www.stanzioneiplaw.com/how-to-identify-and-mitigate-intellectual-property-risks-in-2025/
  43. https://techandmedialaw.com/software-license-compliance/
  44. https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_History
  45. https://www.eweek.com/development/sun-dual-licenses-netbeans/
  46. https://netbeans.apache.org/front/main/index.html
  47. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/
  48. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/682/
  49. https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing
  50. https://www.qt.io/industry/qt-in-automotive
  51. https://www.travancoreanalytics.com/en-us/qt-software-development/
  52. https://blog.jquery.com/2012/09/10/jquery-licensing-changes/
  53. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2758409/jquery-jquery-ui-and-dual-licensed-plugins-dual-licensing
  54. https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/241057/oss-dual-licensing-market-segregation
  55. https://blogs.oracle.com/mysql/post/insignia-financial-uses-mysql-enterprise-edition-to-improve-performance-and-reduce-costs
  56. https://www.finos.org/blog/why-financial-services-firms-are-choosing-open-source-databases-to-drive-innovation
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397183830_Legal_Challenges_in_Integrating_Multi-Licensed_Datasets_within_AI_Training_Pipelines
  58. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf
  59. https://www.emqx.com/en/news/emqx-adopts-business-source-license
  60. https://ainowinstitute.org/report/regulating-ai-through-data-governance-2023
  61. https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/artificial-intelligence-ip-protection-needs-updated-approaches.html
  62. https://lfaidata.foundation/blog/2025/07/22/simplifying-ai-model-licensing-with-openmdw/
  63. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643991.3644900
  64. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05942
  65. https://www.sonatype.com/hubfs/SSCR-2024/SSCR_2024-FINAL-10-10-24.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.