[lug] GPL/Open Source License Questions

[Peter Hutnick]

Glenn Murray said:

> This isn't really a Linux question,

I, for one, think that this is totally appropriate to the list.

> I've been managing a government-funded project (your tax dollars) for a
> couple of years.  The government funding is winding down now.  The
> project consists of a framework with plugins to provide functionality. I
> would like to release the framework and some plugins under the GPL and
> then continue supporting the project by selling proprietary
> plugins.

If the plugins are sold separately for use with the GPL version or are
bundled with the GPL version this could be a problem.  See
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

> Assume I possess the copyright.  I don't see a problem, so far, but...
>
> Suppose XYZ, Inc. will market the plugins for me.  They would like the
> GUI to be modified to refer mostly to XYZ, Inc., and not the open
> framework.  The clients would receive the proprietary plugins included
> in the open framework packaged or "configured" to look like an XYZ
> product (no source code).

The GPL is inherently non-exclusive BUT be aware that you will have to
strike a deal for dual licensing for every patch submitted, or not use it
in the proprietary release.

> Now I am not so sure that I am not violating the GPL. What if an
> "About" page laid out the licensing (GPL framework, proprietary
> plugins and configuration/look and feel)?  ?

Maybe I don't understand this part.  An About page has no impact on
compliance with the GPL.

> Assuming I have the copyright and not XYZ, can I do this anyway?.  I
> always thought that if I retained the copyright, I could release
> software under the GPL and release it under a non-GPL license at the
> same time, or later, or whatever.

That is true, but if you release plugins for a GPL program things get
dicey.  If you incorporate anyone else's GPLed code to a proprietary
package you will be in clear violation.

> Opinions?

Always ;-)

I am a big fan of the GPL, but it seems inappropriate to your desires. 
You may be better off using the Lesser GPL (LGPL) or the BSD license (Or a
variant).

Also, be sure before you shoot in terms of who holds the copyrights.  I'm
not an IP lawyer, but as I understand it "The Government" is not permitted
to hold copyrights.  Who knows what some whacked-out bureaucrat will do. 
There is probably a contractor involved.  If possible, try to think of
everybody who could lay some claim to the code and try to get them to sign
a document denying any interest in it.  See an example toward the end of
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (search for "Ty Coon").

-Peter