3 ms·

Interesting concept, am curious how this withstands community review and analysis. Bit puzzled though, by the statement made immediately after stating that it

Interesting concept, am curious how this withstands community review and analysis. Bit puzzled though, by the statement made immediately after stating that it is GPL2: For commercial, legitimate applications, please contact the author for the appropriate licensing arrangements. Since the GPL2 doesn't permit restricting what others do with GPLd software, I don't think this statement is doing what the author hopes; they might want to consult a lawyer. (IANAL, etc., but there is nothing in there to prevent me, e.g., from building a business out of this, charging gazillions, and keeping it all for myself, provided I make the source available to my customers.)

pc486 2y ago
I believe the author is saying they're willing to relicense the software for commercial integrations.
- PeterWhittaker 2y ago
  I believe you're right, that was my conclusion as well. I'm not sure that that will accomplish what they hoped. To continue my original example, I could, in theory, take this code, ensure that it works with arbitrary independent pseudo-services, create my own such services, under a proprietary licence, and distribute the whole as an aggregate, which is permitted by the GPL. The author likely seeks to provide commercial licensing for those interested in integrating their pseudo-services as libraries, which would require either that they be GPLd or that the original code be licensed in some other way. I hope the author achieves the success they hope for without the licensing and legal hell they may have set themselves up for. It can be a great disappointment to have one's work turned into someone else's success by a someone or someones with more legal and licence cunning than one's self. (Note: that ain't me, I've just seen that exact scenario playout more than a fair few times....)
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Yes, people can do that. It's inconvenient and risky, so serious customer prospects will pay to avoid it. This is one of the more common open source commercialization strategies; one of the earlier examples is Sleepycat.
ddulaney 2y ago
Provided you make the source for any derivative works available to your customers. It’s not uncommon that in situations where that’s undesirable (e.g. a closed-source C library that statically links a GPL’d project) that the library owner pays a fee for a separate license allowing that closed-source distribution. Also, this is sometimes done when it’s not strictly legally necessary, either for risk avoidance or as a way to support the project in corporate environments where “licensing fee” gets waved through but “donation” gets blocked.
- ijustlovemath 2y ago
  I believe the this doesn't apply if you're using existing APIs or using GPL code as a library, otherwise many many corporate codebases would be forced to be open sourced.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    GPL absolutely applies when using a library (unless a separate exception has been made). Of course, the LGPL is often used for libraries when this isn't desired by the author.
  - thayne 2y ago
    > or using GPL code as a library No. The copyleft nature still applies to libraries. That's why the LGPL exists. And the exception in the license for gcc for programs compiled by gcc.
    - jesprenj 2y ago
      Only if you distribute the binary/source of the GPLd library. You may build a non-GPL program that dynamically links with a GPL library and freely distribute it. As long as your program does not contain copyrightable code, you do not have to comply with the licence requirements, because you do not need a licence at all to do that. Same applies for static linking if you only distribute the source and require your users compile the program themselves. This is not limited to GPL, but applies to proprietary libraries as well. It's OK to require a proprietary library at runtime and you don't need a licence to do that. As long as you do not distribute some intellectual property, copyright law and its limitations are not applicable at all. This sounds quite assertive, so compulsory "IANAL, this is just my interpretation".
kiririn 2y ago
The original copyright holder can enforce what they like
- PeterWhittaker 2y ago
  Not quite: once you GPL something, while you retain copyright and can licence it in other ways, the GPL itself forbids you from restricting what others can do with it if they take it under the GPL; the one thing they cannot do is change its licence, but you cannot prevent them from selling it, e.g. The FSF are very, very clear on this.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    You don't care, because whatever a GPL taker does, they're still bound by the viral copyleft, you're not, and you can sell that privilege to others.
    - PeterWhittaker 2y ago
      Not if the original author stills holds the copyright, which is likely the case: the GPL does NOT remove your copyright, and in fact depends upon it.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I understand us to be talking about the options available to the original copyright holder, yes.
dijit 2y ago
You can buy your way out of the GPL if the authors are willing to relicense. Stallman was actually an advocate of doing this. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
- PeterWhittaker 2y ago
  Agreed, cf other comments below. My impression is that that is what this person hopes for and that they think that somehow the GPL prevents others from using this code commercially, which it manifestly does not. (Such use would be subject to the GPL, of course.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pc486 2y ago

I believe the author is saying they're willing to relicense the software for commercial integrations.

PeterWhittaker 2y ago
I believe you're right, that was my conclusion as well. I'm not sure that that will accomplish what they hoped. To continue my original example, I could, in theory, take this code, ensure that it works with arbitrary independent pseudo-services, create my own such services, under a proprietary licence, and distribute the whole as an aggregate, which is permitted by the GPL. The author likely seeks to provide commercial licensing for those interested in integrating their pseudo-services as libraries, which would require either that they be GPLd or that the original code be licensed in some other way. I hope the author achieves the success they hope for without the licensing and legal hell they may have set themselves up for. It can be a great disappointment to have one's work turned into someone else's success by a someone or someones with more legal and licence cunning than one's self. (Note: that ain't me, I've just seen that exact scenario playout more than a fair few times....)
- tptacek 2y ago
  Yes, people can do that. It's inconvenient and risky, so serious customer prospects will pay to avoid it. This is one of the more common open source commercialization strategies; one of the earlier examples is Sleepycat.

ddulaney 2y ago

Provided you make the source for any derivative works available to your customers. It’s not uncommon that in situations where that’s undesirable (e.g. a closed-source C library that statically links a GPL’d project) that the library owner pays a fee for a separate license allowing that closed-source distribution. Also, this is sometimes done when it’s not strictly legally necessary, either for risk avoidance or as a way to support the project in corporate environments where “licensing fee” gets waved through but “donation” gets blocked.

ijustlovemath 2y ago
I believe the this doesn't apply if you're using existing APIs or using GPL code as a library, otherwise many many corporate codebases would be forced to be open sourced.
- mlyle 2y ago
  GPL absolutely applies when using a library (unless a separate exception has been made). Of course, the LGPL is often used for libraries when this isn't desired by the author.
- thayne 2y ago
  > or using GPL code as a library No. The copyleft nature still applies to libraries. That's why the LGPL exists. And the exception in the license for gcc for programs compiled by gcc.
  - jesprenj 2y ago
    Only if you distribute the binary/source of the GPLd library. You may build a non-GPL program that dynamically links with a GPL library and freely distribute it. As long as your program does not contain copyrightable code, you do not have to comply with the licence requirements, because you do not need a licence at all to do that. Same applies for static linking if you only distribute the source and require your users compile the program themselves. This is not limited to GPL, but applies to proprietary libraries as well. It's OK to require a proprietary library at runtime and you don't need a licence to do that. As long as you do not distribute some intellectual property, copyright law and its limitations are not applicable at all. This sounds quite assertive, so compulsory "IANAL, this is just my interpretation".

kiririn 2y ago

The original copyright holder can enforce what they like

PeterWhittaker 2y ago
Not quite: once you GPL something, while you retain copyright and can licence it in other ways, the GPL itself forbids you from restricting what others can do with it if they take it under the GPL; the one thing they cannot do is change its licence, but you cannot prevent them from selling it, e.g. The FSF are very, very clear on this.
- tptacek 2y ago
  You don't care, because whatever a GPL taker does, they're still bound by the viral copyleft, you're not, and you can sell that privilege to others.
  - PeterWhittaker 2y ago
    Not if the original author stills holds the copyright, which is likely the case: the GPL does NOT remove your copyright, and in fact depends upon it.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I understand us to be talking about the options available to the original copyright holder, yes.

dijit 2y ago

You can buy your way out of the GPL if the authors are willing to relicense. Stallman was actually an advocate of doing this. https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

PeterWhittaker 2y ago
Agreed, cf other comments below. My impression is that that is what this person hopes for and that they think that somehow the GPL prevents others from using this code commercially, which it manifestly does not. (Such use would be subject to the GPL, of course.)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]