On 1/20/07, Joshua Zeidner wrote: > > > > On 1/20/07, Darrin Chandler 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? > > > > > > > > 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@gmail.com > -- .0000. communication. .0001. development. .0010. strategy. .0100. appeal. JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER IT Consultant ++power; ++perspective; ++possibilities; ( 602 ) 490 8006 jjzeidner@gmail.com