[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