If a project is closed source and distributed to individuals by the authors. Then the code is released as Open Source years down the road, what are the implications to previous modified works that were done under a closed source situation. ie: Party A gives Party X, Y and Z source code.(Closed Source) Party X does nothing with the source. Party Y modifies it extensively. Party Z modifies it extensively. Party A disappears from the scene. Party Y & Z release binary distributions to the public. Party X releases the original source under Open Source. What is to protect the parties who used the source under closed source against future GPLing of the original unmodified source to force them into releasing their modified version of the original source to the public. In other words is GPL retroactive? How does the release of old source as open source affect others that had modified it prior to the open sourcing. Thanks, Ravensun

No, the GPL is not retroactive. Y and Z didn't get their license from X, but from A, so they aren't affected by X's release of the code under the GPL - unless they later incorporate GPLed component's of X's fork back into their own code. However, since the copyright owner is A, it is doubtful whether X can even GPL the source in the first place.

“Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.” — Brian W. Kernighan

[edited by - Fruny on May 23, 2004 3:27:03 PM]

Also the GPL is per-version, so the next major release can be non-GPL again. But for that all authors have to agree to the new licence, meaning if someone added code he wants to remain GPL that code must be taken out for the non GPL-ed version.

What if we take this one step further.

Party A down the road decides to release the original source as Open Source under GPL feeling it would be useful to people.
Parties Y & Z have already developed commercial products based on that same source.

By definition Parties Y & Z's programs are derivative works of the now GPLd source.

Are they now in a situation where they need to release their works as GPL since it is based on the same version of source that was GPLd after they made their modifications.

Ravensun

[edited by - Ravensun on May 23, 2004 3:42:16 PM]

quote:
By definition Parties Y & Z''s programs are derivative works of the now GPLd source.

No, they are deriviative works of a non-GPL''d source.

Let''s put it this way: Let''s say some fictional company, call it eGO, released and sold a game, call it Quack, under commercial license. They then sold and released the engine to other companies who in turn made commercial games with it. Later eGO went on to do bigger and better things so they released the code to Quack under GPL. The games made with the Quack engine are not subject to GPL because the code they used was given to them under a separate license. Games made based off of the GPL''d Quack code would be GPL''d, but even now eGO is still free to sell (or even give) copies of non-GPL''d source to Quack to other companies or developers.

IANAL. But - it''s about the license, not the code.

Right now, you can release a closed-source game based on the Quake II codebase. It costs $10,000 flat-fee. ALTERNATELY, you can use the GPL license and release your game using the Quake II code for free. But you must adhere to the terms of the license which YOU ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO. But that''s two different licenses, regardless of the fact that they use identical codebase.

The license is your contract. That''s all that matters. After you''ve agreed to one, no party can sneak in and change it without your agreement.

Licenses CANNOT be retroactive, as it defies the very purpose of a contract or license. You could easily force people to give you vast amounts of money or more.

"I change my license to require monthly payments of $1000 from each user, retroactively also for the period where they were happily believing it was Free Software... additionally, everyone who peeked at the source is now my personal slave and must build me a palace"

I disagree with the "per version" statement, however; once the code is GPL and it's not 100% yours in the next version (i.e. someone else contributed to it), you must make sure they forfeit their GPL license rights for their changes to you before you un-GPL the source again.


For our project, we're working with a GPL because it makes things clean, noble and easy. As we hold the copyrights and are a closed team, though, and we won't incorporate any foreign forks of the source in the release, we might as well make a non-GPL version of the engine we can sell to people, or a non-GPL package of the game (though... the GPL explicitly allows charging for the package/distribution, so that point would be moot).

[edited by - Thygrrr on May 25, 2004 6:01:06 PM]