[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice
Subject:    Re: filter licensing
From:       David Levitan <david () emeraldcityofoz ! com>
Date:       2000-06-20 10:54:34
[Download RAW message or body]

I actually have release the code under the GPL, so I have (for the time
being), finished with the licensing. Since it is only small chance that
I will get any money from any company at any time for the code, this is
all purely hypothetical, but I did want the possibility to be there for
this to occur. I do have some comments below:

Jacques Chester wrote:
> 
> David Levitan wrote:
> >
> > My idea was to have it open source and allow it to be incorporated into
> > open source projects, while also selling a commercial version to
> > companies that want to incorporate it into commercial products.
> 
> Some questions here:
> 
> 1) Will this "commercial version" have additional sourcecode
> and functions above the "non-commercial" version?
> 2) Will these additional functions be implemented as closed-source
> additions to the code, a la Sendmail Pro?
> 
> These two questions have an important impact on which
> license you will select. I will elaborate on this more in a
> second ...
>

Probably no to both questions.
 
> [..]
> > Let's say a company will pay me $10,000 for the rights to link
> > against the libraries.
> [..]
> > But if Koffice wanted to use it,
> > it would be completely free, along with source.
> 
> Right here you've violated the Opensource Definition.
> The OSD specifically says that opensource licenses
> do not discriminate between different people or
> different fields of endeavour. All parties - any person,
> any group, any company - must have the same access
> to the code under the same conditions, or the license
> isn't opensource. This is why Sun's SCSL license is
> *not* opensource, as it discriminates between for-profit
> and not for-profit use of the code.
> 

But as far as I understand, doesn't the GPL block companies from linking
with the GPL'ed code at all from commercial software? Isn't that a
violations right there? 
In my case, they can still have access to the open source, as long as
they produce an open source product. They can't incorporate it into a
commercial product without purchasing licenses. Sort of like the QPL.

> David also asked:
> 
> > If I license it under the GPL, but require all those who help to split
> > the copyright with me (or actually, the company that I own), will that
> > be accepted by most people? I'm also guessing that I can then take all
> > of the source (including all modifications) and release a commercial
> > version at any time. Is that right?
> 
> If you own the copyright in a wholly and uncontested
> manner, you may issue the code however you wish
> under whatever conditions you wish. You may, if you
> choose, maintain a GPL'd tree and sell that source
> under a different license to other companies.
> 
> But you must have the copyright to *all* of the code,
> and it *must* be uncontested. Further, you cannot
> revoke the application of the GPL to already-released
> code. In short, you won't have a viable contract.
> Nobody will sign over their copyrights so that *you*
> can on-sell *their* work in a closed format.
> 
> The FSF demands copyright assignment for legal
> and administrative reasons. Firstly, they need to
> defend themselves from those firms whose employee
> contracts lay claim to all code written by employees
> as being theirs. In these cases they need the company
> to release copyright on GNU coding to the FSF.
> Also, when the FSF upgrades the GPL (and Stallman
> is currently working on a GPL v3), they are able to
> move the entire codebase forward in one action, rather
> than waiting for the assent of hundreds of contributors.
> 
[..]

Let's say that everybody does sign over any copyrights to me. In that
case, couldn't I sell the code? Also, what is changing in GPL v3?

> 
> Hope I've helped.
> 
> be well;
> 
> JC.

-- 
David Levitan
LIS
http://www.linux-reviews.com/
http://www.emeraldcityofoz.com/

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]