Dual-Licensing Situation

[seventh guardian]

Hello,

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 5:20 PM, AR <aricvim at suddenlink.net> wrote:
> AR wrote:
> (...)
> 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!

Always remember that the license protects the "code creator" from
abuse, and the "code user" from being accused of abuse. It's not the
other way around. So:

1. If they created the whole code they can put whatever conditions
they want with it. They can even mix GPL with other conditions. They
own the code, they do what they want, and you can't complain.

As an example, I know a case of a guy that wanted to prohibit the use
of his GPL'ed code by nations in war. It was perfectly legitimate,
except that other co-authors were against it, so he couldn't change
the license of the whole code. Then, as a reasonable man, he decided
to keep the license as it was for the project's sake.

2. If they based their work on other GPL'ed code, _then_ they cannot
add any other condition. They cannot even sell it under a proprietary
license. If they are doing so, then you should contact the original
author and advert him.

> 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.

As other people have said, they can do what they want with the
proprietary license. You have no case here.

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

No, they are adding conditional restrictions to the proprietary
license. You can do whatever you want with the GPL'ed code, as long as
you obey the GPL license.

That "restriction" you complain about is probably to prevent people
from mixing both licenses. If you buy the proprietary code you cannot
release it under GPL, and vice versa. I bet you can have both
versions, as long as you don't mix them. But anyways, they are not
doing anything illegal as long as they are the copyright holders.

Cheers,
  Renato Caldas