[U-Boot] [question about using the same code in non-free programs]

[Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com>]

On 26/02/11 23:46, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.
> 
> Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>> after porting into u-boot, i'll open the code. and i(we) have the owner ship
>>> for this protocol
>>
>> Technically, you 'open' the code 'when' you do the port, not after
>> (technically the act of distributing said port)
>>
>> You will still own the copyright of the IP. Some tried to get around the
>> copyleft nature of the GPL be using patents (you can copy the code royalty
>> free, but you infringe a patent which you need to pay for) - Version 3 of
>> the GPL closed this loophole.
>>
>> Now maintaining the dual license will be extremely difficult. Take a look
>> at this trivial example (* = branch, + = merge):
>>
>>                  GPL Applied
>>                     v       /-- Community Mods --\
>> -Your Original -*---|----*-*------Your Mods-------+--- Derivative A
>>                  \       \--------Your Mods----------- Derivative B
>>                   \---------------Your Mods----------- Derivative C
>>
>> Derivative A and B will be GPL as they are derived works of the GPL'd
>> version of the code
> 
> This is inaccurate in my understanding.  As the sole owner of the code,
> you are entitled to release modifications under whatever licence you
> choose irrespective of the code being already released under the GPL.
> You only lose this right when you incorporate changes contributed by
> someone else under the GPL without a transfer of copyright, i.e. in the
> case of Derivative A above.

Agreed - but the core reasoning remains - If you want to maintain a dual
license, you must keep a separate development branch to prevent the
possibility of community mods being applied to your non-GPL branch.

The is another scenario - If a community member creates a patch to fix a
major bug, they own the copyright to that patch and they have the right to
license the patch to you on their own terms as well. This could get very
legally messy very quickly...

> 
>> Derivative C will not be GPL as it is a derivative of the work prior to
>> being released as GPL
>>
>> The problem is, if even a trivial 'community mod' ends up in 'Derivative
>> C', it becomes GPL'd (this is why some people like to slander the GPL as a
>> viral license). But if you do manage to keep a wall between developers of
>> 'Derivative C' and the rest of the community, you can maintain you dual
>> licensing - but the big question is 'Why Bother?' - You want to open up the
>> code-base to the community via the GPL - Great! The community benefits from
>> you kind contribution, and you benefit from the community debugging and
>> improving you code (for free!). The benefits of single licensing under the
>> GPL would surely out-way the maintenance of the dual license.
> 
> My concern would be with the effort required to maintain a clean,
> self-owned branch while allowing outside contributions in the GPL
> branch.  What will you do if someone contributes a fix for a serious
> bug?  You'd have to come up with your own clean-room fix, which seems
> to me like a waste of time.
> 

Exactly

Regards,

Graeme