Dual-Licensing Situation

[AR]

AR wrote:
> I'm looking at a situation where someone has released some code under 
> both GPLv2 and a proprietary license.  I'm being told this:  If you 
> develop (and do not distribute) code using our GPL code, you cannot 
> then get a proprietary license for your code.  That is, if I merely 
> *use* their GPL code, I forfeit the right to buy a proprietary 
> license.  Isn't that a further restriction placed upon my code by 
> them, and therefore a violation of the GPL?
>
> Here is what I think is happening (it took me a while to put my finger 
> on it):
>
> 1. The GPLv2 explicitly gives me the right to compile and run and 
> otherwise monkey around with the licensed code with no consequences in 
> doing so unless there is distribution: "Activities other than copying, 
> distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they 
> are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not 
> restricted. . . ."
>
> 2. If the act of running the Program (or a derivative of it) is not 
> restricted, then there can be no consequences (e.g., loss of rights) 
> 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 my right to buy a 
> proprietary license for my code.
>
> 4. Therefore, the GPLv2 has been violated.
>
>
> Make sense?

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion.  I am getting 
through to some, and you have helped me think more about the situation.  
Let me describe to you a real scenario that falls out directly as a 
result of this dual-licensing scheme:

I download and install Fedora 9.  Suppose it includes the distribution 
from this licensor, and I see from the accompanying documentation that 
it is licensed under the GPLv2.  So I develop this really nifty widget 
thingy.  A company comes to me and says, "Hey!  We have a proprietary 
license from this vendor, and we would like to have you dual-license 
your code so we can use it in our program, and we'll pay you 
such-and-such up front and a per-license royalty."  I say, "Cool.  Let 
me get one of their proprietary licenses so I can do that."

I approach the licensor to get a license so I can dual-license my code, 
and I find out, "Sorry.  Since you accepted the terms of that license, 
you cannot be covered by the terms of our proprietary license, even 
though we didn't tell you that."  "That license," of course, is the GPLv2.

There has *got* to be something wrong with that!  I had accepted 
restrictions that the initial license didn't even mention!

My contention is that they are doing at least one of two things, perhaps 
both:

1. Because the essential terms of the proprietary license depend on the 
acceptance or refusal of the GPLv2 license, they are materially one 
(invalid) license despite the fact that they are calling them two.

2. They are attempting to add further restrictions to the GPLv2 after I 
had already accepted it.