[lug] GPL/Open Source License Questions

[Glenn Murray]

Peter,

Thanks for the reply.  The link to plugins part of the FAQ was especially
interesting.  Also, I found the link

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:414:oeicbinnkpopmlnjdohm

to be helpful for clearing up the copyright vs. license confusion in my
mind.

Glenn



On Mon, 19 May 2003, Peter Hutnick wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug
>