How can open-source have a restrictive usage license?

[Addanc]

A number of the dual license scheme operate along the following lines:

• The free version is released under the standard GPL with emphasis on the copy left nature of the license; i.e. the release of proprietary extensions is encouraged.
• The commercial license takes precedence over the GPL allowing proprietary extensions to remain a secret.

[d000hg]

Just because the source is open doesn't mean it's GPL, or anything else. They can do what they like.

I never said it was GPL... although I can't see an obvious link to which license they use.

What does it do? It seems to be just using the Flash player which isn't difficult to knock up yourself (especially if you can download someone else's handy source code for inspiration).

It's a video player for Flash and HTML5. Even if we take the HTML5 part out, saying "it's simple because it uses Flash" is like saying "X is easy to create because it uses .NET".

[VectraMan]

Just because the source is open doesn't mean it's GPL, or anything else. They can do what they like.

What does it do? It seems to be just using the Flash player which isn't difficult to knock up yourself (especially if you can download someone else's handy source code for inspiration).

[lilelvis2000]

Sure, but it's not just the feature-set. They specifically say you're not allowed to use the free version for commercial use.

If it's under GPL or something standard, what's to stop me building it from the source - is the license on the binary they let you download, or the source-code?

Maybe this thread on their forums can clear this up Licensing a custom build of JW Player | LongTail Video | Home of the JW Player

[d000hg]

Its perfectly possible to have an open source product that does the basics and a more advanced version that is a commercial product.

I think that is what is happening here, the open source product provides core functionality for free but the commercial product offers additional user friendly options such as advert wrappers around the video.

Sure, but it's not just the feature-set. They specifically say you're not allowed to use the free version for commercial use.

If it's under GPL or something standard, what's to stop me building it from the source - is the license on the binary they let you download, or the source-code?

[Sysman]

As far as I am aware, open source doesn't prevent you from charging for something, it just means you have to provide the source code so the end user can modify what they have bought if they want to.

That's how I understand it too.

[blacjac]

As far as I am aware, open source doesn't prevent you from charging for something, it just means you have to provide the source code so the end user can modify what they have bought if they want to.

[eek]

JW Player: Download | LongTail Video | Home of the JW Player

I note this is open-source but you have to pay for a commercial use license. I'm a bit confused how that works - I don't object to paying but am wondering why. Is it that the license is for a pre-built "binary" only - I could build my own version from source and use it commercially for free?

Its perfectly possible to have an open source product that does the basics and a more advanced version that is a commercial product.

I think that is what is happening here, the open source product provides core functionality for free but the commercial product offers additional user friendly options such as advert wrappers around the video.

[d000hg]

JW Player: Download | LongTail Video | Home of the JW Player

I note this is open-source but you have to pay for a commercial use license. I'm a bit confused how that works - I don't object to paying but am wondering why. Is it that the license is for a pre-built "binary" only - I could build my own version from source and use it commercially for free?