Dual Licensing Woes

[Joshua Zeidner]

On 1/20/07, Joshua Zeidner <jjzeidner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/20/07, Darrin Chandler <dwchandler at stilyagin.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 05:28:09PM -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> > >   Recently I have run into yet another company who is 'dual licensing'
> > a
> > > GPL based code base.  In my estimation, none of the principles that
> > these
> > > companies base their business on is sound.  In essence, they are
> > somehow
> > > reserving special rights to a GPL project, and selling those rights as
> > a
> > > product( typically packaged with support services ).  In many cases, I
> > am
> > > obliged to publish any additions I make to the code base( as is proper
> > to
> > > the GPL ), but under some unstipulated clause they are allowed to sell
> > > rights not only to the code base, but to the additions that I have
> > committed
> > > back to the 'community'.  Something doesn't make sense here, and the
> > real
> > > basis of the problem is there is no legal precedence in this area at
> > all.
> > > It almost feels like a scam that is harnessing the public energy and
> > input
> > > towards personal( or corporate ) profit.  Once the code is GPL it is
> > public
> > > and no person or entity reserves the right to license the code in any
> > way(
> > > at least that is my understanding ).
> > >
> > >   Has anyone used a dual license scheme successfully?  or dealt with a
> > > company such as the one I describe above?  Did you buy the 'commercial
> > > license' version of a GPL project?  Were you happy with the product?
> >
> > <insert usual IANAL disclaimer/>
>
>
>
>    Hi Darrin,
>
>
> GPL is based on copyright. The copyright holder has ALL the rights, and
> > may assign them however they wish. If they choose to offer it as GPL,
> > then of course they are bound by that (being their own agreement by
> > their own choice), but that *doesn't* mean they can't also license it
> > other ways.
>
>
>    Exactly.  The GPL is an agreement with the public, and once it is made
> it is not the right of the originator to change that.  This is a situation
> that has come up repeatedly in the past few years.  Recently I have been
> dealing with a project called JasperReports which is a Java based report
> engine similar to Crystal Reports.
>
>     1) At some point in history the original designer released the code
> under the GPL.
>     2) Then reports indicate that he ceded his copyrights to the company
> Japser Reports, Inc.( or somesuch name ).
>     3) Now JasperReports has not technically changed the license, but they
> feel that they can *grant the right to invalidate GPL terms*.  This right is
> bought as part of a service package.
>
>   In my estimation the problem began at step 2.  The author doesn't have
> any rights over the code if he released it as GPL at step 1.  It wasn't his
> to sell or to alter in any way, it was granted to the public.  The company
> _does not have the right to change the terms of the GPL_ regardless of the
> codes origin or their investment in its development.
>
>
> So, you get a copy under GPL because they must provide it. Now you are
> > bound *only* by the GPL.
> >
> > So, you agree to their OTHER license in order to get support,
> > proprietary extensions, or whatever. They, as the copyright holder have
> > every right to do that.
>
>
>
>    I just want to clarify, what copy rights to they retain on a GPL
> licensed code?
>
>
> They can even offer you that OTHER license in
> > place of the GPL (people license their copyrighted works under different
> > terms to different people all the time, and always have).
>
>
>
>   But the key difference here is that the GPL is an agreement with the
> public and describes specific terms, changing those terms, even if you are
> the originator of the code is a violation of the GPL.
>
>
> So, it MAY be
> > that if you have agreed to the OTHER license that you are NOT under GPL
> > at all.
>
>
>
>   Again we have the assumption that the originator is still holding
> something after he has released the code as GPL.  It is my understanding
> that the originator has no more rights over the code base as anyone else.
>
> Not knowing anything (even the names) of the product, company, or
> > licensing terms... who knows? It all depends on that other license.
> > But... are you being used? Probably not in any way that is against the
> > law. Do you *feel* used? Probably, and probably justifiably so.
>
>
>
>   Although there is the issue that they may be exploiting me, there is the
> greater issue that they are exploiting the public at large by violating an
> agreement that was made with them.
>
> A
> > company led you down a rosy path uttering magic "open source" words
> > when, if fact, they were lying rats. Surprise! We're only playing at
> > open source for PR and to get people to code for free!
>
>
>
>   I've run into that one enough times to make sure I've got points
> covered.  This issue that I am dealing with right now is, do I even have to
> consider dealing with the commercial entity at all?  What rights do they
> have over the code?
>
>   One MAJOR issue that still remains in the OSS world is that the US, and
> most other nations have not really expressed their stance on the GPL or
> other major OSS licenses.  There is really no reason for anyone to believe
> that the US government will support the GPL as a valid contract at all.
> Now, there are millions if not billions in the OSS world, these issues are
> bound to find their way to court in coming years.  If anyone knows who are
> the lawyers representing companies like Jasper Reports and SugarCRM please
> let me know who they are.  I hate to bring a random name into this, but I
> believe a man named David Radcliffe
>


  sorry that name is Mark Radcliffe.  apologies....

http://www.linuxworldsummit.com/live/14/events/14NYC07A/conference/bio//CMONYA00BAHW

 - jmz


is supporting some of these progressions in 'Commercial OSS'.  If anyone
> knows of a good lawyer who can help my client sort these things out, please
> contact me.
>
> I hope this works out well for you in the end, or at least that you
> > found out the deal before you spent a lot of time and effort.
>
>
>
>   Thanks Darrin, you've been really helpful.  I hope to help out other
> PLUG people avoid these pitfalls if I can.
>
>   -jmz
>
>
> --
> .0000. communication.
> .0001. development.
> .0010. strategy.
> .0100. appeal.
>
> JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER
> IT Consultant
>
> ++power; ++perspective; ++possibilities;
> ( 602 ) 490 8006
> jjzeidner at gmail.com
>



-- 
.0000. communication.
.0001. development.
.0010. strategy.
.0100. appeal.

JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER
IT Consultant

++power; ++perspective; ++possibilities;
( 602 ) 490 8006
jjzeidner at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20070120/20d90eba/attachment-0001.htm