I know x264 (and upcoming x265) uses this method to make money off their open source software, they release it for anyone to use under GPL but also offer licences for those who wants to use it in proprietary projects.
AFAIK the money made is shared amongst x264 key contributors, but I have no idea if any money trickles down to less prolific contributors.
> if some third-party releases some really good plugin as GPL, without doing copyright assignment, then it means the plugin in question will never be a part of the official distribution,
Why not? I don't see why a third-party plugin should be excluded from the official open source distribution? Obviously they can't offer a proprietary licence for it alongside their own code, but it could still be part of the official release.
>This is why I prefer the open core model, in which anybody can build proprietary things on top.
Hmm... actually I prefer that if someone should make money off proprietary use of open source code, then it should be the authors of that open source code, so personally I prefer the dual-licence mechanism that the x264 devs use.
Anyone can use x264 in full open source fashion under GPL, if someone wants to use their work for proprietary means, the x264 developers are compensated for allowing this.
AFAIK the money made is shared amongst x264 key contributors, but I have no idea if any money trickles down to less prolific contributors.
> if some third-party releases some really good plugin as GPL, without doing copyright assignment, then it means the plugin in question will never be a part of the official distribution,
Why not? I don't see why a third-party plugin should be excluded from the official open source distribution? Obviously they can't offer a proprietary licence for it alongside their own code, but it could still be part of the official release.
>This is why I prefer the open core model, in which anybody can build proprietary things on top.
Hmm... actually I prefer that if someone should make money off proprietary use of open source code, then it should be the authors of that open source code, so personally I prefer the dual-licence mechanism that the x264 devs use.
Anyone can use x264 in full open source fashion under GPL, if someone wants to use their work for proprietary means, the x264 developers are compensated for allowing this.