Hi,
I've written a GPLed (not LGPLed) library which I know is currently used in a software licensed under the BSD license, so this is clearly a GPL violation since the other software license should be GPLed too.
I'm currently trying to make the other software authors change their license to GPL to comply with my module's license.
However AFAIK it may be impossible for them to comply since they may be disallowed to do so by the company they are a part of, which may want to keep the right to close their sources (we are currently discussing the issue, no need for a flamewar on them)
In other words, in the worst case scenario, the two only options available to them are : 1 - don't use my library at all.
2 - ask me for a sublicense in exchange of money (I'm the only author), which I'd be glad to accept ;-)
This is if I understand the GPL correctly.
Now if they finally choose point 2, and ask for my software under a different license (BSD for example) and I agree, what are my options to :
1 - give them my software under the BSD license in exchange of money.
2 - allow them to give/resell and/or close their sources which include my own BSDized (or other) sources.
3 - don't allow any of their "client" to extract my library's sources from their whole package and redistribute it under the BSD license, since I want to keep my library under the GPL for the rest of the world.
So is there a license somewhere to solve this problem, or what would you do in the same situation ?
Since IANAL any help on the text of a possible license would be greatly appreciated, especially because I'm french and they aren't...
I've read this mailing list archive (April and March) and I've found a somewhat related thread but with no clear answer.
I've asked to the FSF but I've got no answer yet.
Thanks in advance for any help.
PS : Sorry if I'm not clear, just ask for more details if needed.
Jerome Alet - alet@unice.fr - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome Fac de Medecine de Nice http://wwwmed.unice.fr Tel: (+33) 4 93 37 76 30 Fax: (+33) 4 93 53 15 15 28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:14:07PM +0200, Jerome Alet wrote:
Hi,
I've written a GPLed (not LGPLed) library which I know is currently used in a software licensed under the BSD license, so this is clearly a GPL violation since the other software license should be GPLed too.
You are wrong, it doesn't have to. As long as they keep their version open, there is no violation of licence. If somebody will ever take their code and close it, or if they will close it, they will be unable to legally use your library.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:14:07PM +0200, Jerome Alet wrote:
I've written a GPLed (not LGPLed) library which I know is currently used in a software licensed under the BSD license, so this is clearly a GPL violation since the other software license should be GPLed too.
Note that the authors of the other software code parts will still be the authors and hold the rights. So they can release their code parts under the conditions they want.
You are correct in that the combined larger program will have to be under the GNU GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
Thus the question is: Are the other code parts compatible with the GNU GPL? Modified BSD licenses usually are.
Then I do not see a problem.
1 - don't use my library at all.
2 - ask me for a sublicense in exchange of money (I'm the only author), which I'd be glad to accept ;-)
This is if I understand the GPL correctly.
If you are the one holding the rights you can give out several licenses of "your" software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF | To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but | legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the | copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various | different non-exclusive licenses at various times.
So is there a license somewhere to solve this problem, or what would you do in the same situation ?
Find out if there really is a problem. Study the GNU GPL FAQs.
I've asked to the FSF but I've got no answer yet.
Probably because they are quite busy and wrote that nice FAQ. (Which it very long I admitt.)
Hello.
I've written a GPLed (not LGPLed) library which I know is currently used in a software licensed under the BSD license, so this is clearly a GPL violation since the other software license should be GPLed too.
That's not completely right, as already remarked by Tomasz Wegrzanowski.
The program as a whole must be licensed according to GPL terms, but each part (file or whatever) can still be licensed in a different way as long as it's a gpl-compatible license.
Thus, your used can't distribute the binary unless on GPL terms, but some parts can be reused according to different terms.
However, please be careful when talking about "BSD" license, as there's not one of such licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html explains why it is unclear to talk about BSD-style licenses.
I'm currently trying to make the other software authors change their license to GPL to comply with my module's license.
It's not needed. But the program _as_a_whole_ must be GPL'd if they include your code.
However AFAIK it may be impossible for them to comply since they may be disallowed to do so by the company they are a part of, which may want to keep the right to close their sources (we are currently discussing the issue, no need for a flamewar on them)
They can close their source, but not link them with your library in that case. So they don't need to change license to use your library in the free release; they just won't be able to use the library in a non-free release.
In other words, in the worst case scenario, the two only options available to them are :
1 - don't use my library at all.
2 - ask me for a sublicense in exchange of money (I'm the only author), which I'd be glad to accept ;-)
I've had the same problem. We (several authors) would accept to release LGPL if paid to do do. The "client" turned to a different (proprietay) product instead.
Now if they finally choose point 2, and ask for my software under a different license (BSD for example) and I agree, what are my options to :
1 - give them my software under the BSD license in exchange of money.
Yes. Why still releasing to the public the GPL version. Sure people can distribute the BSD version, but if yours is the "official" one you most likely won't loose control of it. But yes, having to "competitors" in this way might be very bad to handle.
2 - allow them to give/resell and/or close their sources which include my own BSDized (or other) sources.
You might give them a copy with a different license, still not BSD, that they could use in the non-free version. They should have no problem in linking the GPL library from the free distribution.
3 - don't allow any of their "client" to extract my library's sources from their whole package and redistribute it under the BSD license, since I want to keep my library under the GPL for the rest of the world.
That's whay I say above, but your terms are wrong. IF there's such clause than it's not BSD at all.
Hope this helps
I've asked to the FSF but I've got no answer yet.
Sorry, we are very backlogged.
/alessandro
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
The program as a whole must be licensed according to GPL terms, but each part (file or whatever) can still be licensed in a different way as long as it's a gpl-compatible license.
what does "Program as a whole" mean ? (sorry)
does this mean :
- their own package without my library - a big-package : all their code + mine
Thus, your used can't distribute the binary unless on GPL terms, but some parts can be reused according to different terms.
ok
However, please be careful when talking about "BSD" license, as there's not one of such licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html explains why it is unclear to talk about BSD-style licenses.
I'll check again, thanks for the tip.
I'm currently trying to make the other software authors change their license to GPL to comply with my module's license.
It's not needed. But the program _as_a_whole_ must be GPL'd if they include your code.
still not clear for me, see above.
They can close their source, but not link them with your library in that case. So they don't need to change license to use your library in the free release; they just won't be able to use the library in a non-free release.
ok, I understand
1 - give them my software under the BSD license in exchange of money.
Yes. Why still releasing to the public the GPL version. Sure people can distribute the BSD version, but if yours is the "official" one you most likely won't loose control of it. But yes, having to "competitors" in this way might be very bad to handle.
Yes it may be a problem
2 - allow them to give/resell and/or close their sources which include my own BSDized (or other) sources.
You might give them a copy with a different license, still not BSD, that they could use in the non-free version. They should have no problem in linking the GPL library from the free distribution.
ok
3 - don't allow any of their "client" to extract my library's sources from their whole package and redistribute it under the BSD license, since I want to keep my library under the GPL for the rest of the world.
That's whay I say above, but your terms are wrong. IF there's such clause than it's not BSD at all.
ok so I delete 3 and then I must "innovate" to crunch my BSD/proprietary competitors ;-)
Not that bad, after all !
Hope this helps
I've asked to the FSF but I've got no answer yet.
Sorry, we are very backlogged.
No problem.
Thanks to all for the invaluable help !
Jerome Alet - alet@unice.fr - http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome Fac de Medecine de Nice http://wwwmed.unice.fr Tel: (+33) 4 93 37 76 30 Fax: (+33) 4 93 53 15 15 28 Avenue de Valombrose - 06107 NICE Cedex 2 - FRANCE