Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chungy 780 days ago
"Viral" is the word Steve Ballmer used to describe the GPL as a negative thing.

It remains that the owner of the copyright can release the software under any terms they deem fit. Including changing their mind about what license to use for future versions. The license is, well, a license for anyone that's not the copyright owner; it's absolutely non-binding on the copyright owner themselves.
1 comments
nxicvyvy 780 days ago
Has this been tested in court?

I also don't think "this is a license for anyone not the copyright holder" is accurate. The license specifically prohibits removal of the license you can't "dual license" GPL code.

You can license code under GPL, and you can license the same initial code under a second license, but going forward those two pieces of code are forked. You can't then ship GPL modifications to the other license simply because you have the copyright ownership of the modifications, well, in fact you can, but that requires the GPL license to infect the other source code. You being the sole developer in all of this is irrelevant.

I think this comes down to the answer of this question:

Can you rescind a GPL license?

If not, even as the copyright holder, then no, you as the copyright holder don't have rights over the code moving forward.

That was part of the purpose and intention behind this license.

link
desas 780 days ago
> you can't "dual license" GPL code.

Yes you can, and lots of very popular open source software have done so, including Mozilla, MySQL and QT. RMS also says it is fine: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions.

> You being the sole developer in all of this is irrelevant.

It's the fundamental point.

If you own the copyright to project A and you own the copyright of some patches to project B then you can combine them however you like and distribute them under whatever licences you like.

GPL governs distribution. As the copyright owner you aren't "distributing" those patches to yourself, so the GPL doesn't apply.

[0] https://www-archive.mozilla.org/mpl/relicensing-faq

[1] https://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/

[2] https://www.qt.io/qt-licensing

link
mrighele 780 days ago
Sorry, but you are wrong.

> I also don't think "this is a license for anyone not the copyright holder" is accurate. The license specifically prohibits removal of the license you can't "dual license" GPL code.

The terms in the GPL applies only to the licensee. Unsurprisingly the copyright holder still holds the copyright and is not bound to the term of the license.

> Can you rescind a GPL license?

Nobody is rescinding the license here. Whoever got the source code under the GPL license will keep having the rights to _that_ source code. What you call rescind, is in fact licensing the existing code _also_ under different terms, _and_ new modifications only under the new terms.

link