Dual-Licensing Situation

[Thomas Charron]

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.

> 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?

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

>> 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'.

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


>>> 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 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

  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.

-- 
-- Thomas