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

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

[Dongil Park]

Dear All.

I have one question about porting one of my code into u-boot.

actually, it 's one kind of Protocol and it already have been used for our
company programs.

I wonder if i port this protocol into u-boot, does it affect to our programs
which already in Market?

i found below answer from GPL FAQ, and i think there will be no problem.


*I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would
like to use the same code in non-free programs.*

*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. *


after porting into u-boot, i'll open the code. and i(we) have the owner ship
for this protocol

thus there will be no problem, am i right?

*@Wolfgang Denk, i need your opinions about this issue. Please answer my
question :)*

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

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi,

Le 26/02/2011 06:46, Dongil Park a ?crit :
> Dear All.
>
> I have one question about porting one of my code into u-boot.
>
> actually, it 's one kind of Protocol and it already have been used for our
> company programs.
>
> I wonder if i port this protocol into u-boot, does it affect to our programs
> which already in Market?
>
> i found below answer from GPL FAQ, and i think there will be no problem.
>
>
> *I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would
> like to use the same code in non-free programs.*
>
> *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. *

This answers your question from a technical standpoint: as the owner of 
some source code, you can release it under a dual license, so you can 
release it under 'GPLv2 or later' and at the same time under a 
proprietary license.

As for programs already released, no, they are not affected. A license 
only affects the software release it accompanies, not fuure or past 
releases.

> after porting into u-boot, i'll open the code. and i(we) have the owner ship
> for this protocol

What do you mean by ownership of the protocol? How would that ownership 
manifest itself exactly?

> thus there will be no problem, am i right?

Define 'problems' in terms of precise scenarios. Legal issues are 
complex and cannot be summed up as 'problems' easily.

For instance, note that with what you plan to do, if this happened in 
France where I live:

- once your code is under GPLv2+, it can be modified and redistributed 
under GPLv2+ (and possibly some other similar licences).

- you cannot assert the proprietary license against someone who got the 
code under GPLv2, via U-Boot or otherwide.

- if you change the protocol, in many countries people will have the 
right to modify the source code and adapt it to match the protocol change.

- if you have protected the name of the protocol, then there could be 
restrictions to other people using this name -- they may not be able to 
include the protocol's name in a SW product of theirs, for instance.

- you might also have some level of protection against competitors using 
your protocol outside of U-Boot, or at least outside of a GPLv2+ product.

All this being fairly dependent on the exact IP laws of the countries 
involved -- I know only a part of what applies in France and quite 
probably in Europe, but I know that things could differ for other countries.

> *@Wolfgang Denk, i need your opinions about this issue. Please answer my
> question :)*

Why not simply Cc: him then? :)

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

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

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Dongil,

OK, I am not a lawyer - Most (if not all) of the people on the U-Boot
mailing list are also not lawyers and if they are, they may not be
intellectual property (IP) lawyers. And if there are IP lawyers on the
U-Boot list, they probably are not familiar with the laws of your country
(which would be hard given we do not know which country you are from)

That being said...

On 26/02/11 16:46, Dongil Park wrote:
> Dear All.
> 
> I have one question about porting one of my code into u-boot.
> 
> actually, it 's one kind of Protocol and it already have been used for our
> company programs.
> 
> I wonder if i port this protocol into u-boot, does it affect to our programs
> which already in Market?

Possibly not - But you may have a problem where you have licensed the IP
for the protocol (possibly for a fee) to an individual or organisation and
they then obtain the source for the protocol through U-Boot and they decide
to implement it (or pay someone else to) for their particular application
- The GPL gives you no right to limit there use of the GPL code (unless
they violate the terms of the GPL). That is the crux of the GPL being a
permissive license - it permits rather than restricts (hence copyright ->
restrict versus copyleft -> permit.

You may find commercial contractual issues if you have licensed a previous
release and then release the code as open source (especially if those
license require ongoing annual support fees)

> 
> i found below answer from GPL FAQ, and i think there will be no problem.
> 
> 
> *I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would
> like to use the same code in non-free programs.*
> 
> *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. *

Remember, under the GPL, *you* retain the copyright to the IP unless you
are required to hand it over in order for it to be accepted (like
Canonical). However, the license you grant under the GPL is very difficult
to revoke (and involves the licensee violating the conditions of the GPL
itself). So as the copyright owner, you can do anything you want with the
IP including licensing it under a different license, but at the same time
you cannot stop others doing what they want provided they follow the terms
of the GPL. However, this goes against the grain of why Richard Stallman
created the GPL. The GPL is very specifically designed such that when IP is
released under the GPL, it is practically impossible to 'unrelease' it

> 
> 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

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.

Now, you may want to work on a new and improved version of your protocol
and release that under a restrictive (non GPL) license - So be it (Richard
may not like it ethically and morally, but you have the legal right). One
classic example of this activity is the Doom/Quake source. Older versions
of those engines are release under the GPL while the latest version is
released under licensing terms which allow id software to generate revenue
directly from the IP in the new source code.

> 
> thus there will be no problem, am i right?

The problems are less if you embrace the philosophy of the GPL, not just
the legality of the GPL :)

> 
> *@Wolfgang Denk, i need your opinions about this issue. Please answer my
> question :)*
> 

I think (and hope) you will get more the just Wolfgang's :)

To sum up : If you want to start splitting legal hairs - Hire a lawyer

btw - everything I wrote above may or may not be accurate, but it is my
opinion ;)

Regards,

"IANAL" Graeme

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

[Måns Rullgård]

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.

> 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.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com

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

[Graeme Russ]

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

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

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Dongil Park,

In message <AANLkTinUT3coZBBrbitz=yqwCaFacz8_mts8a61+eCeg@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> I wonder if i port this protocol into u-boot, does it affect to our programs
> which already in Market?

It only depends on the license terms you select.

> *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. *

Correct. If you are the copyright holder and if there are no other
limiting conditions (like Patents or other licneses you depend on) you
can alway release your code under multiple licenses, one of these for
example being the GPL.

> after porting into u-boot, i'll open the code. and i(we) have the owner ship
> for this protocol

If you release the code under a GPLv2+ (or compatible) license
(probably as onve of several available licenses of this code), the
code can be included into U-Boot.

I don;t understand what you mean by "we have the ownership for this
protocol" - if the code is available under GPL, anybody is able to use
and change this protocol in the same free manner as he does with the
code.  If the use of your protocol is in some way restricted (say,
it is covered by some patents that limit it's use - see for example
the situation for audio and/or video codecs) then your code will not
make it into U-Boot, for the same reasons why we don't accept non-free
code.

> *@Wolfgang Denk, i need your opinions about this issue. Please answer my
> question :)*

I am not a lawyer.  You don't want my opinions.  You want a binding
statement from your legal department.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"I've seen it. It's rubbish."          - Marvin the Paranoid Android