Re: [oc] Inquiry

[John Dalton <john.dalton@bigfoot.com>]

> So they make the SAME code available under two different licenses ?
> As a free version under GPL, and as a commercial version under a
> Commercial license with support ?
> Thats very interesting !  I didn't know you could do that. I thought
> if you release something under GPL, it becomes covered under GPL.

Yep.  It basically comes down to the author(s) of the code own(s) it.

If you are the only author of a piece of code, you are the sole
copyright holder and are responsible for enforcing any licensing
terms you set.  Since it is unlikely you will sue yourself, you
are free to release your code under the GPL, then license it a
second/third/fourth/... time under whatever terms you want.
It's no different to selling the same code to multiple clients.
Just be *very* sure that none of the additional licenses are
exclusive.  That is, don't promise to anyone that they will be the
only ones to have use of anything which you want to put under the GPL.

Dual licensing is not unusual in software.  Mozilla/Netscape
is the most well known example.  The code is released under the
GPL as well at the 'Mozilla public license', which allows Netscape to
use Mozilla code in their closed source browser.

People have also tripped themselves up using dual licensing.
Wolfram Research runs a website called Mathworld, which used to
be free.  They sold a license to CRC to publish a book version of
the website, stuffed up on the licensing terms (let an
exclusive license) and ended up losing control of the website
contents.  Now CRC owns the website and licenses it back to
Wolfram.  There is a FAQ available about the lawsuit:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/docs/faq.html

Also, the situation becomes more complex with multiple authors.
All authors must agree to any licensing conditions, including
dual licensing and changes in licensing terms.

I'm not sure how bug reports/patches impact on sole authorship/
ownership.  I think it depends on the significance a bug report.
A single line change by another party might not weaken the owner's
copyright, but large changes would result in the author of
a patch having some say in licensing (unless the patch is written
out of th ecode base).  If money is involved in a dual licensing
issue, I imagine the extent of ownership or patches could make a good
courtcase for a seriously disenchanted party.

Regards
John
--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml