[License-discuss] Open Source Eventually License Development

Engel Nyst engel.nyst at gmail.com
Sat Aug 24 04:19:43 UTC 2013

On 08/21/2013 07:27 PM, zooko wrote:
> I think I already have this with the Tahoe-LAFS codebase, because of the way
> that it is dual-licensed under TGPPL v1+ or GPLv2+ at your option. It satifsies
> (i), because B can use a1 under the TGPPL. It satisfies (ii), because B can use
> a1 under the GPL. It satisfies (iii), because the TGPPL does not allow B to
> keep b1 proprietary-for-a-limited-time and then license b1 under GPL to C.
> The only (?) downside to this scheme is the possibility of a licence-fork:
> someone could take a1 (e.g. the current version of Tahoe-LAFS) under either GPL
> or TGPPL and release a dervied work (b1) under GPL-only, or under TGPPL-only,
> and then downstream users from them would not have the dual-licence option.

I don't see how is this only a possibility, I think it's a certitude of 
a "license-fork": B *has* to license under TGPPL-only, if they want 
proprietary-for-a-limited-time option. If, during the 1st year, B would 
dual-license b1, then C (and A) who receive b1 could want it under GPL. 
B doesn't want that, and can't say "I have the right under GPL to make 
you wait an year".
So downstream from B only receives b1 under TGPPL.
(excluding if B has licensing rights to additionally re-add GPL after 
one year, but I feel that's entirely different)

Am I missing something?

More information about the License-discuss mailing list