The license model of Craft CMS 1.0

The logic behind the license model

Pixel & Tonic wants to build the best CMS for the widest possible range of websites, and every decision proceeds from that goal. They consider some restrictions on plugin developers necessary. Plugins that distribute malware or use undocumented APIs are prohibited, and both make sense from a security and stability standpoint.

More controversial is another restriction: plugins that replicate Craft's functionality are not allowed, whether that's core features or paid packages. This is the point that has frustrated some developers, especially given that Pixel & Tonic themselves built their name as plugin developers for ExpressionEngine.

The reasoning behind it: Craft's core is free and works well for personal blogs or portfolios. Additional functionality comes through paid packages, so costs scale with the scope of a project. For this model to work, Pixel & Tonic needs a monopoly on those package features.

If you want a multilingual site, you buy the Languages package. If other developers could offer the same functionality, Pixel & Tonic would earn nothing from it. To make matters more complicated, the packages are already present in the core and simply unlocked by purchase, so technically, replicating them wouldn't be particularly difficult.

My take

I understand both sides. The freemium model gives Craft the chance to be used on smaller projects. Someone who tries it on their own blog and likes it might reach for it later on client work. While Craft is still being cross-subsidized by ExpressionEngine plugin revenue, that's a reasonable approach.
That said, it's hard not to notice the irony. Pixel & Tonic built their success at ExpressionEngine by offering functionality the core didn't have:

• Wygwam - a paid rich text editor for those who found the built-in one lacking.
• Playa - a paid plugin for better relationships between channels and fields, for those who found the built-in relations field insufficient.
• Assets - a paid plugin for better file management, for those who... I think the pattern is clear.

That's why I understand the criticism of the plugin developers and I'm curious if and how Pixel & Tonic will adjust the license agreement in the future. Maybe they just have to say goodbye to the freemium model and charge for the basic CMS, if this enables real competition on the plugin level. Because the whole ecosystem would benefit from that.