legal issues under GPL

[Chris D. Sloan]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:39:24AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Be sure to distinguish the following:
> 
>    * copyright in the original work (you apparently own that)
>    * copyright in the contributions (contributors own that)
>    * copyright in derivative works you create (you own that)
>    * copyright in collective works you create (you own that)
> 
> When contributors give you their code to incorporate into your
> derivative and collective works, thank them and accept their
> contributions if you want to -- unless the contributors restrict you in
> unacceptable ways by the license terms on their contributions.  For
> example, someone can send you a contribution but he restrict your use of
> a patent; you can't incorporate such a contribution into a GPL-licensed
> product (see GPL § 7).  It is your duty, with your attorney's
> assistance, to review the licenses of your contributors to make sure you
> can use those contributions with your product.
> 
> /Larry Rosen

I'm a little vague on how this would successfully work like the
original poster asked.  So, I'm going to explain how I see it and ask
some questions:

Bob makes product A and owns the sole copyright to it.  Bob releases
it under a dual license, the GPL and Bob's Commercial License.  We'll
say that Bob's Commercial License allows people who pay for a license
to sell derived works without releasing the source code.

Charlie downloads product A and uses it under the terms of the GPL.
Charlie creates patch P which, when applied to A creates derived work
AP.  Charlie want's to send P back to Bob.

Now, here's my first uncertainty:  I think that the GPL requires that
AP also be under the GPL, and it may also require that P be under the
GPL too.  I'm not exactly sure.

Anyway, Charlie chooses to make P and/or AP available to Bob under the
terms of the GPL.

Bob wants to take P and incorporate it into his distribution.  He also
wants to incorporate his changes and release a new release B (which
includes P) under his dual GPL/BCL license.

Here's the part I don't get:

Since P (or AP) is under the GPL, Bob shouldn't have any more right to
relicense it under his dual license than Charlie would to relicense A
under Charlie's Commercial License.

Is there some magic in the dual license which helps Bob do what he
wants?  Or does Bob need to get a signed copyright assignment from
Charlie in order to relicense P (as part of B) under the GPL/BCL dual?


	Chris
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3