GPL as an evaluation license

[Oleg Goldshmidt]

2011/4/9 Aviad Mandel <aviad.mandel at gmail.com>

> Hi list,
>
> I know you're not lawyers, but I though you could help me with a GPL issue.
>

IANAL, but I'll try.


>
> I'm writing a function library in C which I want to sell licenses for,
> targeting a specialized industry. To make my entry point better, I plan to
> release it under GPL (as opposed to LGPL) so that potential users can
> evaluate it properly before making a decision.
>

This is not clear to me. With all the respect due to GPL, what makes you
think that it will make evaluation better? Do you mean that reviewing your
source code will allow them to evaluate it better? You can give source code
to your potential customers under all sorts of terms.

I am not trying to discourage you from using GPL, far from it. But your
goals are not clear.


> My target industry is far far away from FOSS, so I'm pretty sure that they
> won't release their own code under GPL in order to adopt mine free (as in
> beer).
>
> So as long as I make sure I own all copyrights, will this work legally?
>
> Two main questions:
>
> (1) Is GPL giving me the enough protection?
>

>From what? What is your risk here?

If you give Company XYZ  your library under GPL they are free to use it, in
either modifed or unmodified form. They can build their own product upon it.
They can use it internally or they can host it on heir servers (just as
example), and provide a service to their customers. They will not be able to
*distribute* the library or any derivative work without the distributed
stuff being under GPL.

Bottom line, you have not given enough information about your customers'
business (or about your business) to give you a yes/no answer.

(2) Will GPL allow a company which hasn't bought a non-GPL license enough
> freedom to evaluate the library?
>

Depends on what evaluation consists of. If evaluation is strictly internal
(or providing a beta-service to customers) then yes. If Company XYZ needs to
give a copy of their software linked to your library to someone (who does
not work for them) then probably no.


>
> What makes this slightly complicated, is what happens when company X
> decides to take my library and integrate it into their proprietary software
> for evaluation. Even for their internal copies, they can't badge the whole
> package as GPL, because they don't necessarily own the rights to all
> components, and may not even have all sources.
>

This does not matter. I assume the legal relationship here is between you
and Company XYZ. So in-house they can do whatever they want - it's not
distribution. of course, if some other piece of software has a license that
says "do not link this to anything GPLed" then there is a problem. I have
not seen such clauses.


> So let's look at the case where the company has just linked my GPL'ed
> library with their proprietary source codes + proprietary libraries for
> which the company only has as binaries.
>
> Now person X wants to send a copy of the software's binary (my library
> included) to person Y, say over email. Under what conditions is it legal? If
> person Y works at the same company? For the same company (outsourcing)? Has
> access to everything necessary to build the software, so that person Y could
> in theory build the binary from software owned by the company + the library
> under GPL?
>

This does make it complicated, and more than slightly complicated. The key
here is the notion of distribution.

Case 1: Mr. Y is an employee of Company XYZ. No problem - giving a copy to
Mr. Y is not distribution.

Case 2: Mr. Y is a contractor. Does his contract with Company XYZ include
the provision that his work is "work for hire"? If yes, then maybe it is OK
(in the US). If not, then (e.g., in the US) the contractor is an independent
entity and giving him a copy constitutes distribution.

Case 3: Mr. Y actually works for a subsidiary of Company XYZ. Even if the
subsidiary is wholly owned by XYZ it is, by law, an independent entity. So
it is distribution. (Still it may not matter in practice, or it may.)

Case 4: Mr. Y is a consultant who works under NDA on a project for Company
XYZ. NDA or no NDA it may be a problem for XYZ, for Mr. Y, for both, and for
you.

There are probably many more relevant situations, and different laws in
different countries may or may not apply. If Mr. Y is crucial to make the
evaluation problems may arise.


-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | pub at goldshmidt.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/pipermail/linux-il/attachments/20110409/b9d08480/attachment-0001.html>