On the boundaries of GPL enforcement [LWN.net]

On the boundaries of GPL enforcement

Posted Jul 28, 2016 5:16 UTC (Thu) by gwg (guest, #20811)
Parent article: On the boundaries of GPL enforcement

What isn't addressed by such "community" views on GPL enforcement, is the reality that many individuals and companies making GPL software available also need to be able to make a living. The dual licensing model is a semi-viable way attempting that. Companies have a simple and clear choice - comply with the GPL, or take up a commercial license. Allowing them to prevaricate by "negotiating" compliance with a party that is bending over backwards to get them just to release source code, doesn't compensate for the financial advantage they have enjoyed by not taking up a commercial license in the first place. Not all who make GPL software available are employed to do so, or are able to create substantial software purely in their spare time - and it's hard to write software when you don't have somewhere to live, can't pay for power, or don't have a computer because you are busy giving all your work away and getting little in return financially. Without support for dual licensing, there will be less GPL software available, and part of that support is an effort to enforce the GPL in a way that compensates financially.

[ And I think it is all a little weird anyway - there is no "community" you have to join to make your software available with a GPL - the license is between you and whoever agrees to it by making use of your software. There is no third party to answer to, or who's GPL enforcement rules you have agreed to. ]

to post comments

On the boundaries of GPL enforcement

Posted Jul 28, 2016 12:16 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> [ And I think it is all a little weird anyway - there is no "community" you have to join to make your software available with a GPL - the license is between you and whoever agrees to it by making use of your software. There is no third party to answer to, or who's GPL enforcement rules you have agreed to. ]

s/you/everyone who's contributed code/.

One can't unilaterally allow dual-licensing (after the fact) unless one also completely owns everything outright. That's pretty rare unless some sort of contribution agreement is utilized.

proprietary relicensing & software freedom morality in revenue-generation

Posted Jul 28, 2016 19:27 UTC (Thu) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] (5 responses)

Even tough it is possible to generate revenue a particular way does not mean that method of revenue generation has a positive impact. Often, it has a negative impact. There are plenty of examples outside of software (fracking comes to mind).

As long as proprietary software is legally permissible, which it admittedly is, there will be proprietary business models, and people who use them. The danger in proprietary relicensing is it is designed as a trick to convince people to rely on copylefted software, and actually hope that they fail to follow copyleft terms and gouge them.

I deeply dislike Gitlab's business model, but it nevertheless honest and fair, and gives no special powers to Gitlab. Gitlab is not copylefted, and anyone who wants to can take their community edition and make the same business model Gitlab does. It's fair.

Using copyleft for proprietary relicensing takes a tool designed to advance software freedom, and warps it in a nefarious way to turn it into a scare tactic and nearly a shareware-like system. The usage is by default unequal, because it has one of the same flaws that proprietary licensing: certain entities have more rights and powers that other entities do not. This is why I criticize proprietary relicensing almost as harshly as I criticize “mundane”proprietary licensing.

As to your point about how much extra copylefted code is generated as part of the process, I'm not sure that's inherently good, if the tool of copyleft is actually being used to promote proprietary software adoption and creation instead. I don't believe copyleft is a moral good unto itself; it's a tool that can often be utilized to advance software freedom, but any tool can be used for a purpose not within its original intent. I believe the usage of copyleft for proprietary relicensing usually does just that.

Finally, we're past the business model discussion: it's clear that one can earn a living doing only Free Software, but because proprietary software is still permitted, it's really difficult to do so — proprietary software has an unfair advantage over Free Software. Copyleft is a tool to help mitigate that problem, but it's not a perfect tool (as we're discussing). As such, making a living with only Free Software means you probably will be paid less for your work, but I know plenty of people who make a true living wage doing so. It's a question of commitment and values.

proprietary relicensing & software freedom morality in revenue-generation

Posted Jul 28, 2016 21:19 UTC (Thu) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (4 responses)

Does anyone have a standardized set of terms for the "selling exceptions" approach (as a preferable alternative to selling a proprietary license)?

I'd love to see some templated terms that effectively say "anyone who meets these conditions may ignore the copyleft terms of the license", with "these conditions" being anything from a one-time fee to a royalty model.

proprietary relicensing & software freedom morality in revenue-generation

Posted Jul 29, 2016 15:16 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

The only exception I would accept - and actually it's an exception I would like to see - is that you can distribute the binary "as received" provided you point the recipient to where they can get the source.

Okay, if the source disappears then your recipients are up a gum tree, but so are you if you didn't download it ... :-)

Cheers,
Wol

proprietary relicensing & software freedom morality in revenue-generation

Posted Jul 29, 2016 16:52 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (2 responses)

>The only exception I would accept - and actually it's an exception I would like to see - is that you can distribute the binary "as received" provided you point the recipient to where they can get the source.

IIRC, the GPLv3 explicitly added this as an option.

proprietary relicensing & software freedom morality in revenue-generation

Posted Jul 29, 2016 18:49 UTC (Fri) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (1 responses)

I can't find that option in the GPLv3 - there's section 4 referring to verbatim copies of source code, but section 6, which discusses non-source forms, does not appear to have an exception for "as-received".

proprietary relicensing & software freedom morality in revenue-generation

Posted Jul 29, 2016 19:32 UTC (Fri) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

The way I read 6(d), it sounds like it's okay to distribute unmodified binaries and point people to corresponding source at the upstream project, as long as you take responsibility for preventing dead links.