[lug] GPL/Open Source License Questions

[D. Stimits]

Peter Hutnick wrote:

> Glenn Murray said:
>
>
> >GPL pro:
> >
> >The GPL protects me as a developer as it makes it tough for some
> >corporation to take my open code and then compete in the marketplace
> >with me when I try to sell it under a different license.  I must
> >acknowledge risk of this if I think there is a market for it in the
> >first place.
>
>
> I'm not completely convinced of this.  Let's say you release your
> framework under the GPL.  I fork it and create a GPL to non-GPL plugin
> interface.
>
> I then compete with you in the plugins market for your framework, but I
> have the advantage of being able to roll GPL fixes and improvements into
> my fork of the framework.
>
> I think that dual-licensing for market protection is a losing game.  Look
> at Mozilla and Galleon.
>
>
> >GPL con:
> >
> >I understand that few developers would want to contribute to
> >GPL-licensed code if I am going to make money off of it (unless,
> >perhaps, they assigned the copyright to their contributions to me and I
> >paid them for their contributions out of my profits; JBoss does
> >something like this).
>
>
> I don't think that many people care if you dual license.  But you can't
> distribute their code under any license other than the GPL without
> permission.

Just to throw another wrench in and have fun, consider that if someone 
were to send you a patch, *perhaps* it would be possible to sell the 
original product, and provide only the source of the diff patch if 
someone sent a bug fix in to the gpl version (or provide a note that the 
source of the gpl patch is available).

>
> The BSD license, OTOH, does allow this.  (But you lose (the possible
> illusory) protection you mentioned above.)  (That's right, I make
> parenthetical statements within my parenthetical statements, then make
> parenthetical statements about them!)
>
>
> >Scott Herod's "layered" licensing suggestion is intriguing: say in a
> >classic three tier architecture have the gui/client layer be GPL and
> >have the middle layer and database schema be a less restrictive
> >GPL-compatible license.  There may be some mixed license headaches? Is
> >this too nuanced?
>
>
> Should be headache free as long as you only link GPLed code with code that
> is under a GPL compatible license.

I wish I could believe all of the linking definitions out there. This is 
one part I'd love to see tested in a court case.

D. Stimits, stimits AT attbi DOT com