4 ms·

> Another interesting point in the case is that the court found Artifex’s claim of damages to be admissible because of their use of dual-licensing. An economic

> Another interesting point in the case is that the court found Artifex’s claim of damages to be admissible because of their use of dual-licensing. An economic structure for remuneration of the developer by users who did not wish to comply with the GPL terms, and thus acquired a commercial license, was clearly present. Interesting development. This makes me want to dual-license my software so that violations have more teeth to them.

likelynew 9y ago
Well, why? If someone uses GPL only, it means they are not looking for money, but is more of a choice to not use more permissive licences. Dual licensing does not solves anything for them.
- rwmj 9y ago
  Wait what? I write GPL only software for a living and I certainly am looking for money from it. It's just that I don't get the money by selling you the software itself.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    It's just that I don't get the money by selling you the software itself. Even that is perfectly fine. The company I previously worked for did exactly that: sell AGPL-licensed software to other businesses.
- daurnimator 9y ago
  Because when I choose a GPL license, I do it because I want anyone that uses that code to share their changes back with me. If all I get out of a long court case is finally seeing their code, then it's not worth it for me to sue, and it's not worth it for them to comply with the license. Instead: if I dual license it: when they don't comply with the GPL license, I can sue them for damages: which makes things a hell of a lot more appealing for a lawyer to take my case, and not as much as a waste of my time.
  - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
    "dual-licensed" is normally used to describe 2 Open Source licenses that user can choose from. [Edited for clarity]
    - rmccue 9y ago
      I believe here that the use of "dual license" here is about open source + paid proprietary, not two open source licenses. The idea being that you can claim damages.
    - quadrangle 9y ago
      normally is a stretch. The term applies to all forms of dual licensing, and dual free and proprietary might be more common, just maybe not in your particular experience.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    > I do it because I want anyone that uses that code to share their changes back with me You should be clear that the GPL has no such upstream requirement. Changes only need to be passed on downstream. It's pass-it-on, not give-back. It often works out that upstream gets access to the same channel that receives the changes, but that's not necessarily the case, strictly.
vilhelm_s 9y ago
Although Jacobsen v. Katzer (2008) seems to give teeth even without dual licensing. Katzer argued that the open-source conditions are "non-economic", and therefore not enforcable as a copyright infringement case, but the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit wrote > Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source projects. Improvement to a product can come rapidly and free of charge from an expert not even known to the copyright holder. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the economic motives inherent in public licenses, even where profit is not immediate. [---] The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. The attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of the copyright holder that the law will enforce. Through this controlled spread of information, the copyright holder gains creative collaborators to the open source project; by requiring that changes made by downstream users be visible to the copyright holder and others, the copyright holder learns about the uses for his software and gains others' knowledge that can be used to advance future software releases. The parties later settled, so we don't know what damages could have been awarded, but this affirms the basic principle of the GPL.

likelynew 9y ago

Well, why? If someone uses GPL only, it means they are not looking for money, but is more of a choice to not use more permissive licences. Dual licensing does not solves anything for them.

rwmj 9y ago
Wait what? I write GPL only software for a living and I certainly am looking for money from it. It's just that I don't get the money by selling you the software itself.
- icebraining 9y ago
  It's just that I don't get the money by selling you the software itself. Even that is perfectly fine. The company I previously worked for did exactly that: sell AGPL-licensed software to other businesses.
daurnimator 9y ago
Because when I choose a GPL license, I do it because I want anyone that uses that code to share their changes back with me. If all I get out of a long court case is finally seeing their code, then it's not worth it for me to sue, and it's not worth it for them to comply with the license. Instead: if I dual license it: when they don't comply with the GPL license, I can sue them for damages: which makes things a hell of a lot more appealing for a lawyer to take my case, and not as much as a waste of my time.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  "dual-licensed" is normally used to describe 2 Open Source licenses that user can choose from. [Edited for clarity]
  - rmccue 9y ago
    I believe here that the use of "dual license" here is about open source + paid proprietary, not two open source licenses. The idea being that you can claim damages.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    normally is a stretch. The term applies to all forms of dual licensing, and dual free and proprietary might be more common, just maybe not in your particular experience.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  > I do it because I want anyone that uses that code to share their changes back with me You should be clear that the GPL has no such upstream requirement. Changes only need to be passed on downstream. It's pass-it-on, not give-back. It often works out that upstream gets access to the same channel that receives the changes, but that's not necessarily the case, strictly.

vilhelm_s 9y ago

Although Jacobsen v. Katzer (2008) seems to give teeth even without dual licensing. Katzer argued that the open-source conditions are "non-economic", and therefore not enforcable as a copyright infringement case, but the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit wrote > Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source projects. Improvement to a product can come rapidly and free of charge from an expert not even known to the copyright holder. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the economic motives inherent in public licenses, even where profit is not immediate. [---] The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. The attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of the copyright holder that the law will enforce. Through this controlled spread of information, the copyright holder gains creative collaborators to the open source project; by requiring that changes made by downstream users be visible to the copyright holder and others, the copyright holder learns about the uses for his software and gains others' knowledge that can be used to advance future software releases. The parties later settled, so we don't know what damages could have been awarded, but this affirms the basic principle of the GPL.