Dual-Licensing Situation

[AR]

seventh guardian wrote:
> Hello,
>   

Hi.  Thanks for your input.

> 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.
>   

You are exactly correct, but in all cases, the restrictions would be an 
addition to the GPL that is expressed up-front as part of the license text.

Note as well that it is possible for additional restrictions added to 
the GPL to make it non-GPL-compatible.  E.g., the advertisement clause 
of the original BSD license made it GPL-incompatible.  So if I were to 
license something under the GPL with the addition of the advertising 
clause, it would no longer be a GPL-compatible license.  It would be 
wrong and perhaps illegal for me to represent the license as being GPLv2.

> 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.
>   

You are correct again.  As far as I know, this is not the case.

>   
>> 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.
>   

Not so.  If they add terms to the GPL, they *must* be included up-front 
as part of the license, or they are not part of the license.  There 
cannot be terms hidden from the licensee.

>   
>> 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.
>   

Yes, this has been expressed by others, but I don't agree.  If the 
consequences are the sole result of accepting the GPL, then they are 
terms added to the GPL, not the proprietary 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.
>   

That is not the case.  They recognize in their FAQ that you are free to 
release your code under the GPL if you have a proprietary license.

> Cheers,
>   Renato Caldas
>
>
>