3 ms·

Yes, the "outcome" to which I was referring was in fact the effect of dual-licensing. With respect to the book chapter, as I interpret it, reciprocity includes

by 10165 9y ago

Yes, the "outcome" to which I was referring was in fact the effect of dual-licensing. With respect to the book chapter, as I interpret it, reciprocity includes asking for the licensee to open source their work. But I leave this to the experts to interpret definitively. Assuming I am not misunderstanding, if the licensee "reciprocates", then there is no closed source and the "problem" I am alluding to goes away. Because users can now see the source code and theoretically they can determine where it came from. (The problem being that GPL source code and the value thereof is sometimes "concealed" in closed source products. This is just my personal view. I may care about things that others do not. Opinions may differ.)

lolc 9y ago
You cannot have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code. It's a violation of the license so the code ceases to be GPL-licensed and becomes unlicensed. If you distribute that code, in source or binary form, you can get sued by the copyright holders which is what this case is about.
- eru 9y ago
  You can totally have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code as long as you don't publish it. So you can totally run your SaaS business like that. The Affero GPL tries to close that loophole.
  - lolc 9y ago
    Indeed the code only becomes unlicensed as soon as you violate the GPL terms. So I guess the correct way of framing this would be that internal copies, including changes, are still under the GPL.
- fourthark 9y ago
  You can if it is dual-licensed.
  - lolc 9y ago
    Then it's licensed under some other license and the GPL does not apply. If I rent a building and the building is for sale I still don't own it until I close that contract. If I copy GPL-licensed code without following the license terms, the GPL no longer applies and the code becomes unlicensed. The GPL is explicit about that. If I acquire code under another license than the GPL my copy is not GPL-licensed even if it's available under the GPL license. Ultimately, the GPL requires that all people who pass on code under the GPL adhere to its terms. If one person in the chain didn't (for example by not making available the source) all subsequent copies become unlicensed.

by 10165 9y ago

lolc 9y ago

You cannot have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code. It's a violation of the license so the code ceases to be GPL-licensed and becomes unlicensed. If you distribute that code, in source or binary form, you can get sued by the copyright holders which is what this case is about.

eru 9y ago
You can totally have GPL-licensed code in closed-source code as long as you don't publish it. So you can totally run your SaaS business like that. The Affero GPL tries to close that loophole.
- lolc 9y ago
  Indeed the code only becomes unlicensed as soon as you violate the GPL terms. So I guess the correct way of framing this would be that internal copies, including changes, are still under the GPL.
fourthark 9y ago
You can if it is dual-licensed.
- lolc 9y ago
  Then it's licensed under some other license and the GPL does not apply. If I rent a building and the building is for sale I still don't own it until I close that contract. If I copy GPL-licensed code without following the license terms, the GPL no longer applies and the code becomes unlicensed. The GPL is explicit about that. If I acquire code under another license than the GPL my copy is not GPL-licensed even if it's available under the GPL license. Ultimately, the GPL requires that all people who pass on code under the GPL adhere to its terms. If one person in the chain didn't (for example by not making available the source) all subsequent copies become unlicensed.