SSL negotiation protosol in CIFS
Paul.Green at stratus.com
Thu Aug 23 15:15:39 GMT 2001
From: "Michal Trojnara" <Michal.Trojnara at mirt.net>
> In fact what I want to do is to create dual-licensed software
> (both GPL and commercial).
IANAL, but I have spent ("invested") hours of my time in meetings with IP
lawyers who are familiar with the GPL and its traditions.
If by commercial license you mean (a) the ability to charge typical
licensing fees based on the perceived value of the work and (b) not
requiring you to make the source code available, and if by GPL you mean the
GNU Public License version 2 (i.e., the current version), then the only way
I know of to achieve this goal is to write the software twice, as two
independent versions, with no common source files. If you end up in court,
you will need to find an independent expert skilled in the craft who will
agree that they are two independent versions (i.e., no machine translating
back and forth). You can use the same algorithms in each. You may use
algorithms you discover in any existing GPL'd source code (and probably in
any open-source code). However, you won't be able to patent any new
inventions that you disclose in the GPL'd version and use in the proprietary
version. The act of publishing the algorithms under the GPL renders them
unpatentable. References in the GPL'd version to prior, granted patents
might just render those patents unenforceable. (The GPL specifically grants
holders of the software a license to any patents covered by the software).
All this comes from the lawyers. Whether you can use the same people to
write both versions is somewhat of an unsettled question, at least to me.
To quote a character played by Clint Eastwood -- "Do you feel lucky?". Using
two teams is generally seen as better insurance.
Good luck. You'll need it.
Paul Green, Senior Technical Consultant, Stratus Technologies.
Voice: +1 978-461-7557; FAX: +1 978-461-3610; Video on request.
More information about the samba-technical