Dual-Licensing Situation

[AR]

Joseph Heenan wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> AR wrote:
>>> Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>>>> Well, there are no restrictions imposed upon your usage of the GPLv2
>>>> software. They also don't impose conditions on your usage or 
>>>> distribution
>>>> of the software. So what's the problem?
>>>>
>>>> They only say "once you start using the GPL software, we won't sell
>>>> a proprietary license anymore".
>>> Which is effectually adding terms to the original GPL license, 
>>> because the original GPL license did not say that.
>>
>> GPLv2 only forbids recipients from adding restrictions to the rights
>> granted by the GPLv2. A refusal to sell a proprietary license is not
>> a restriction on the rights granted by GPLv2.
>>
>> "I will give any person $1000 if (s)he promises not to use any GPLv2 
>> software ever."
>> Oops. Did I just invalidate everyone's GPLv2 license? 
>
> Perhaps it becomes even clearer if you consider the case of two 
> companies:
>
> Company A has developed and distributed some GPL software.
>
> Company B refuses to sell you any of their proprietary software if you 
> have used Company A's software.
>
> Certainly company A is not violating the GPL in any way, and company B 
> is also definitely not violating the GPL as it is not even bound by 
> it. I can't see how company A & B being the same company can make it 
> be a GPL violation.
>
> (Company B's behaviour might be considered morally/ethically 
> unacceptable, but they're free to choose how they run their business.)
>
> Joseph

Thanks, Joseph, for this insight.  I agree entirely with your A and B 
company scenario.  If I accept A's software, B is not a party to it.  
However, if A == B, then there is a single licensing party, and it is 
therefore possible for the two licenses to effectually be one 
materially, despite the fact that the licensor is trying to call them 
two.  If A != B, that can never happen.  I'm not saying that is the case 
here (although I believe it is so), but because of the A == B, it is 
possible.  That's the difference.