3 ms·

Sorry ZodTTD, that's not how Open Source licenses work. Cutting a back room deal with some of the original authors for a cut of your profits doesn't absolve you

Sorry ZodTTD, that's not how Open Source licenses work. Cutting a back room deal with some of the original authors for a cut of your profits doesn't absolve you from blatant violation of a software license. If that even happened, considering that all we have to go on is your already tarnished word that you're passing the profits along. You have a rotten history of taking others' open source work and trying to turn it around for a quick buck. Google had every right to suspend your accounts.

Estragon 15y ago
Actually, if it's a GNU licence, the original author may be perfectly entitled to licence the software under more commercially favorable terms. I know of at least one author who's made a significant amount of money doing this.
- avree 15y ago
  It was GNU GPL.
  - georgemcbay 15y ago
    Actually it doesn't matter what license it is. It isn't so much that the GNU GPL allows or disallows you to sell a commercial version without source but rather that the original copyright holder can release the software under as many different licenses as they want to, similar to the way that Nokia (née Trolltech) used to release Qt as GPL but also sell commercial licenses that allowed you to not be beholden to the GPL. The trick is that the person releasing under multiple licenses must own all the code (which is one of the reasons some projects require copyright assignment to contribute). Of course all of this is likely irrelevant in this specific case, since I don't think this guy is telling the truth here, but you can absolutely sell GPL (or any other FOSS license) licensed code to other parties under a different license that doesn't require them to share code as long as you hold the copyright to that code.
    - zodttd 15y ago
      What truth am I to tell?
      - seabee 15y ago
        Presumably, the 'truth' that they originally found out about. Given there have been a few spins on the story and one player (Google) is being characteristically quiet, not everyone will believe you, or be generous to suppose an innocent misunderstanding happened.
        zodttd 15y ago
        That's a shame. There's not much to this. Summed up here: http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/open-source-software-licensing/ http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/open-source-software-licens...
- angusgr 15y ago
  Even though GPL is the most obvious case where you'd want this, it's not the only one. AFAIK there is no software license which prohibits the copyright holder (ie original author) from relicensing their software, either to individuals or openly, under as many other licenses as they see fit. It does get complex when a single Open Source project contains code from multiple different contributors, each holding their own copyright. I believe that's one reason why plenty of OSS projects (GNU & Android both spring to mind although with opposite motives) require contributors to assign copyright as part of contributing. Alternatively, it's also a problem if you (say) link a bunch of GPL-licensed libraries to your own OSS source code. AFAIK in that case you can't really relicense & distribute your project in its entirety under a different license, due to GPL virality. I have NFI if any of these gotchas apply in this case, though.
extension 15y ago
He claims to have a private licensing agreement in place with the copyright holder(s). Until the latter comes forward to claim otherwise, I guess we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. For now, this isn't really any of our business.

Estragon 15y ago

Actually, if it's a GNU licence, the original author may be perfectly entitled to licence the software under more commercially favorable terms. I know of at least one author who's made a significant amount of money doing this.

avree 15y ago
It was GNU GPL.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  Actually it doesn't matter what license it is. It isn't so much that the GNU GPL allows or disallows you to sell a commercial version without source but rather that the original copyright holder can release the software under as many different licenses as they want to, similar to the way that Nokia (née Trolltech) used to release Qt as GPL but also sell commercial licenses that allowed you to not be beholden to the GPL. The trick is that the person releasing under multiple licenses must own all the code (which is one of the reasons some projects require copyright assignment to contribute). Of course all of this is likely irrelevant in this specific case, since I don't think this guy is telling the truth here, but you can absolutely sell GPL (or any other FOSS license) licensed code to other parties under a different license that doesn't require them to share code as long as you hold the copyright to that code.
  - zodttd 15y ago
    What truth am I to tell?
    - seabee 15y ago
      Presumably, the 'truth' that they originally found out about. Given there have been a few spins on the story and one player (Google) is being characteristically quiet, not everyone will believe you, or be generous to suppose an innocent misunderstanding happened.
      - zodttd 15y ago
        That's a shame. There's not much to this. Summed up here: http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/open-source-software-licensing/ http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/open-source-software-licens...
angusgr 15y ago
Even though GPL is the most obvious case where you'd want this, it's not the only one. AFAIK there is no software license which prohibits the copyright holder (ie original author) from relicensing their software, either to individuals or openly, under as many other licenses as they see fit. It does get complex when a single Open Source project contains code from multiple different contributors, each holding their own copyright. I believe that's one reason why plenty of OSS projects (GNU & Android both spring to mind although with opposite motives) require contributors to assign copyright as part of contributing. Alternatively, it's also a problem if you (say) link a bunch of GPL-licensed libraries to your own OSS source code. AFAIK in that case you can't really relicense & distribute your project in its entirety under a different license, due to GPL virality. I have NFI if any of these gotchas apply in this case, though.

extension 15y ago

He claims to have a private licensing agreement in place with the copyright holder(s). Until the latter comes forward to claim otherwise, I guess we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. For now, this isn't really any of our business.