Dual Licensing Woes

[Joshua Zeidner]

On 1/20/07, Darrin Chandler <dwchandler at stilyagin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Joshua,
>
> >    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.


   Just to clarify, you are claiming that the originator of a copyright that
is GPL licensed does have the right to change the license after it is
released as such?

   It seems that you are claiming that its GPL unless I agree to another
license.  Why is a particular party privileged in this sense?


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.



  The issue here is that GPL code is viewed as a public resource.  When a
company claims to have the right to grant special privileges to that
resource, they are impinging on the rights of the public.  I can't have a
special privileged party with the ability to give market favor to a
competitor.  At this point it ceased to be public resource, and according
popular conjecture has none of the positive qualities associated with Open
Source.

  It would appear that under this rubric, this scenario could arise:

  Developers Linus, Bob, and Tim are the 3 contributors to a popular OSS
kernel.
  Each has the ability to sell the copyright to a company.
  Linus, Bob and Tim decide to sell their copyright to a company they form
called Microsopht.
  Microsopht now has the ability to grant special privileges, such as
commercial sale of the said kernel.



> > 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.



  What about situations where there are thousands of compounded commits by
hundreds of different people?  Who holds the copyright in that case?  Who
owns the copyright to the linux kernel?


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.



  As I mentioned before, it is anyones guess how the GPL /will/ hold up in
court.  These kinds of list conversations have little bearing on million
dollar business decisions.  My guess is that the rights of the public will
be increasingly infringed on until either 1) consensus is reached and some
kind of law is made 2) open source dies( oh the humanity! ).


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."



   Its really not about indignation.  I've already been through that with a
company that actually claimed its software was licensed a certain way, and
it wasn't.  Thats when I discovered the OSI.  I just want some public
consent on these issues.  And I thank you for suppling that... jmz



-- 
.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/20070120/4910a7a8/attachment-0001.htm