On 1/20/07, Darrin Chandler <
dwchandler@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 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
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)