Dual Licensing Woes

[Darrin Chandler]

Hi Joshua,

On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 08:41:33PM -0700, Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> 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.

Ah, I think I see the root of the confusion here. No, the GPL is an
agreement between the copyright holder and whoever obtains a copy
through GPL licensing. The copyright holder retains ALL rights to
his/her own work.

>    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.

Step 2 is well within the rights of the original author. The original
author retains ownership and all rights to the work, unless they assign
them away. I don't believe it was ever intended that the GPL take these
rights away from the author/copyright holder.

Step 3 depends a LOT on what they're doing. Probably they paid good
money to an attorney to make sure they were on solid ground. Something
along the lines of "I agree that this license supercedes and previous
licensing terms." There's as much precendence for this as you care to
find.

> 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?

Well, they retains all rights except those they have granted to others.
They can't put the cat back in the bag on the whole, but they can with
YOU if they get YOU to agree to it (and probably charging you for it).

If you don't agree to the other license (and support or whatever) and
get a copy under GPL, then everything works as you expect. Once you
*have* signed on, you are legally and ethically bound by that agreement.

> 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.

We're back to this, and it seems the rest of your post is about this,
too. I don't believe this to be the case at all. You're thinking of the
GPL similar to releasing something as public domain, where you formally
give up all of your rights. My take on the GPL is that it's a licensing
agreement between the copyright holder and anyone using the product or
downloading the source. While rights are extended to the licensee (and
obligations placed on the licensee), the rights are not "given up" by
the copyright holder.

I know there are some people here who know the GPL backwards and
forwards, so PLEASE correct me or generally clear up anything I've left
muddy.

And finally, Joshua, as I said before... you are probably right to feel
a sense of injustice. I did not hunt down the licenses (if they are
available without signing up for a contract), but I would not be at all
surprised if such details were not made clear to you. Many of these
companies really are out to *seem* open while really being a bunch of
lying bastards. Pardon my French. "Some a**hole said he was Open, but he
was only open for business."

-- 
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD Users Group
dwchandler at stilyagin.com   |  http://bsd.phoenix.az.us/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |