Dual-Licensing Situation

[AR]

Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 06/06/2008 alle 09.51 -0400, AR ha scritto:
>   
>> I don't think your analogy is an accurate representation of the situation.
>>     
>
> What you don't understand is that they are the copyright holders so they
> can do what they want. _they_ are not bound by the GPL.

They are bound by the GPL because they released their copyrighted code 
under the GPL.


>  They can even
> say "hey, you discussed about that on gpl-violations so we won't sell
> you the proprietary license" and that would be perfectly fine.
>   

You're right.  It would be.  But to come back later and say to me:  
"Hey.  You have a valid GPL license with us, but what you don't know is 
that when you agreed to that license, you forfeited the ability to get a 
proprietary license, even though we didn't say it in the GPL license 
itself."

>   
>> Scenario 1:
>> I am the copyright holder of my code.
>> I developed it using the $1000 proprietary license of dual-licensed
>> code.
>> I release it under the GPL.
>> A company approaches me that wants me to dual-license it for
>> $5000 to include in their non-free code.
>> My code is worth $4000, and I can live off that for a while to
>> improve 
>> and GPL-release my code.
>>     
>
> I kept asking myself why they would do that kind of double-licensing
> until I read "Scenario 1". Now, I understand. <g>
>
> federico
>
>