Dual licensing

[jcowan at reutershealth.com]

nospam+pixelglow.com at pixelglow.com scripsit:

> 1. Doesn't the GPL prohibit un-GPL'ing the code? Or does dual licensing rely on
> having files with identical content but different licenses?

If you are the copyright owner, you can issue as many licenses as you please,
and there is no conflict, any more than there is conflict when you let some
people borrow your car but not others.

> 2. I'm uncomfortable with making contributors assign copyright to me, just so I
> can dual-license. Would it be sufficient to get them to send me a form email
> stating that they agree their contribution will be dual-licensed?

Unless you anticipate having to sue someone, it is sufficient if they license
their works to you under a non-restrictive license such as the AFL.

> 3. Any GPL-compatible commercial license templates I can look at? Especially
> those that are clear and short.

GPL-compatibility is not an issue.

In the nature of things, commercial licenses are typically specific to a
commercial relationship, and you really want a lawyer to write you one that
suits your purposes.

> 4. The GPL obviously doesn't prohibit commercial activity on top of the
> software, since Red Hat et. al. use services as a commercial model. Is there
> any OSI-certified license that would either encourage or compel commercial
> activity to have to use a different, commercial license? E.g. I note that the
> mySQL site phrases this as "quid pro quo" but not an enforceable requirement.

There isn't and can't be any compulsion, because the OSD forbids it.

> For example, the Affero GPL tries to close the hole where someone uses the
> software to run a web service but then keeps the modifications private. But I
> don't see that the Affero GPL has been OSI-certified.

AFAIK no one has ever submitted it.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan at reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a grey-clad
moving hill.  Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes,
but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him
does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are
but memories of his girth and his majesty.  --"Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit"
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3