Dual-Licensing Situation

[AR]

Thomas Charron wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:08 PM, AR <aricvim at suddenlink.net> wrote:
>   
>> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>>     
>>> AR wrote:
>>> I don't see how. You don't lose any rights granted to you by
>>> the GPL.
>>>       
>> Thanks for your reply.  Yes I do lose rights, so let me try a different
>> viewpoint:
>>     
>
>   No, you don't lose a right.  You don't have a right to *buy* anything, ever.
>   

You obviously did not even read my argument below, so I really shouldn't 
bother restating it.  But . . . I am not necessarily talking about 
buying anything.  I am losing the right to accept the GPLv2 without 
giving up something the license does not require me to give up.

>   
>> The GPL grants me the right to run the program without restriction among
>> other things.  It grants me the right to accept the license without
>> additional conditions.  There are lots of ways to say what is going on, but
>> this is the gist of this licensor's offer:  "You can buy a proprietary
>> license or you can use the GPLv2 license.  If you use the GPLv2 license, you
>> must give up your ability to obtain a proprietary license."  So I cannot
>> accept the GPLv2 by itself.  I must consider it with the proprietary license
>> looming behind it.  The GPLv2 requires that it stand alone.
>>     
>
>   Is it included IN the gplv2 they would grant you?
>   

Again, you did not even bother to take the time to read my arguments in 
the next paragraph. I am saying that they are essentially tacking on 
their proprietary license to the GPL.

>   
>> In fact, as I think about it, even though the proprietary license and the
>> GPLv2 license are offered as two separate licenses, the vendor is basically
>> attaching his proprietary license to the GPL license to make one by
>> referring to it:  I can only accept the proprietary license if I have not
>> already accepted the GPLv2 license.   You must consider what you lose before
>> you accept the GPLv2--that is not the freedom the GPLv2 seeks to guarantee.
>>     
>
>   Your trying to extend the freedom that the GPL seeks to grant you to
> also include the ability for you to choose to close something else?
>   

Nope.  I'm saying the licensor is trying to add restrictions to the GPL.

> First of all, I feel that your argument is counter productive, and
> secondarily, if you fully intend on going over to a closed license
> after the fact, then your complaining because you yourself wish t
> perform exactly what your complaining about.

You are being willfully blind.  I am doing nothing of the sort.  Let 
those of us who understand the issues discuss this.

>   Using the GPL to allow
> you to do somthing that will eventually be contrary to rights the GPL
> seeks to provide others.
>   

You don't understand dual-licensing, do you?  Ask MySQL about it.  They 
have built a successful company doing it.  And they do not place 
additions on the GPL.  I am free to develop with the GPL code from them, 
and then obtain a proprietary license for my code if I wish to sell it 
to someone--even if I have released my code as GPL.  Why would I do 
that?  I can provide a warranty and/or support for my proprietary 
licensed version and not for the GPL version.  I can fund my work, and 
the GPL community gains.

As the copyright holder, I can release my code as GPL and I can license 
it with a proprietary license just like MySQL and a host of other 
companies do.  I am not trying to do anything that is contrary to the 
rights the GPL gives to others.  I trying to get people's opinions about 
what I view as a serious block to the successful funding of 
dual-licensed code, and I believe it breaches the GPLv2 quite clearly.

>   
>>> More importantly, the copyright holder cannot violate a
>>> license he grants to you.
>>>       
>> Correct, and he has granted me the right to run the program without
>> restriction and the right to accept the license without additional
>> conditions.
>>     
>
>   And he/she/they are free to say, 'I don't want your money.  You have
> a license, I wont sell you a different one'.
>   

Yes.  Their reasoning is that I will be scared and buy a proprietary 
license "just in case," even though I shouldn't have to until I decide 
if I want to release the code.

>> OK, my choice of wording could have been better.  My argument still stands
>> with this rewording of 2 and 3:
>> 2. If the act of running the Program (or a derivative of it) is not
>> restricted, then there can be no consequences (i.e., loss of anything) from
>> running the program.
>>
>> 3. The consequences of running the GPLv2 release of the dual-licensed code
>> mentioned above with my code is that I lose the eligibility to buy a
>> proprietary license for my code.
>> Essentially, the vendor is adding a condition to the GPLv2:  I must give up
>> the option of a proprietary license in order to accept the GPLv2.  The GPLv2
>> does not allow the addition of conditions.
>>     
>
>   Ok, that I agree is totally not right.

You accuse me of complaining and trying to take people's GPL rights 
away, and then you agree with me.  Amazing.  Simply Amazing.

>   Not in spirit, however.  The
> stipulation should, IMHO, be as part of THEIR license, NOT as an
> additional restriction of the GPL.
>   

What I'm saying is that it doesn't make any difference if it is part of 
their license or not.  If they make a reference in their license to 
using it only if the GPL has not been accepted, they are for all 
practical (and perhaps legal) purposes merging the two.  That's why I 
started this thread.  I am purporting that this is a misuse of the GPL, 
and I am sincerely trying to see if other people agree.  So if you wish 
to participate in the discussion, please take the time to understand 
what I am saying and discuss the issue intelligently.

>
>   
>>>> 4. Therefore, the GPLv2 has been violated.
>>>>         
>>> Even if your theory is correct, the only consequence is that you
>>> can't use the GPLv2 version (it self-destructs upon breach) and
>>> the company won't sell you the proprietary version. That seems
>>> kind of painful for you.
>>>       
>> The GPLv2 does not self-destruct when the grantor breaches.  What you're
>> saying is that if I use a GPLv2 program for 10 years, the grantor of the
>> license can breach the GPLv2 just to revoke my license.  Sorry, it doesn't
>> work that way.  You lose your rights as *recipient* of the license if *you*
>> breach it.  The recipient does not lose the rights if the *grantor*
>> breaches.
>>     
>
>   Umm, if the ORIGINAL license is totally invalid, then you don't have
> a license for anything.  You'd better delete it quick before they
> sue..  :-D
>   

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  The original license is not 
totally invalid.  I've accepted the GPL license, and now the licensor is 
trying to tell me that I forfeited the ability to get his other license 
as a result when there was nothing in the original license (the GPL) 
that indicated that.  He's adding repercussions to the GPL after the 
fact, and if that is not a breach of the GPL, I don't know what is.

>   
>>> I do wonder how they company is going to prove that I did use their
>>> GPLv2-licensed code on my computer if no acts of distribution occur.
>>>       
>> If they grant you a proprietary license, they have audit rights.  If they
>> find what they consider to be a breach, they can do Bad Things to you.
>>     
>
>   But only because they feel you did bad things.  :-D
>   

And I feel they have.  That's what this discussion is about.  To 
determine if they are violating the GPL or not.  The description of this 
list does say, "This mailinglist is for discussion of legal aspects of 
current and/or past GPL enforement [sic] action. Please don't post 
generic questions on the GPL that are not related to any particular case."

>   Instead of continuing this in a haze, I'd suggest you simply fess up
> as to who and what we're talking about here.  You're basically
> complaining to the list, without providing any sort of contextual
> information.  If your seeking free legal advice, I have one to give..
> :-D  Get a lawyer for legal advice.
>   

Sorry.  The list rules prohibit smearing people, so I make no specific 
accusations so far.  From the FAQ:  'Beware the "public shaming" bomb. 
It's easy to let off, but very hard to defuse if you made a mistake or 
the issue turned out to be minor and is rapidly resolved.'  If I get any 
feedback that this may indeed be a violation, I'll post specific details.