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?
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to