Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Duallicensing model for Exiv2?

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Huggel
    Here is a subject for discussion. What s your opinion on this? There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use the Exiv2 library in their
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 6, 2006
      Here is a subject for discussion. What's your opinion on this?

      There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use the Exiv2
      library in their proprietery software. Most suggested changing the license to
      LGPL, someone now appears serious about a commercial offer.

      Technically and legally, it seems feasible to use a dual-licensing model for
      Exiv2: a choice of GPL and a commercial license. (Real companies that are
      doing this include MySQL and Trolltech (Qt).) Of course, I could only
      re-license the code for which I own the Copyright, which includes most of the
      library right now. Also, there is a precedence of some sort, the Vizrea
      agreement (http://www.exiv2.org/whatsnew.html#5).

      The main intention for Exiv2 is to contribute it to the open-source community
      under the GPL. On the other hand, if it turns out that it could at the same
      time pay for some of the time invested to develop and support it, why not?

      However, the concern and question is whether this would deter people from
      investing their time to contribute to Exiv2 or in some other way negatively
      affect the open-source project? What do you think?

      Andreas

      PS: For those not on the list: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/exiv2/
    • Will Stokes
      This is a complicated subject. I have similar feelings about my own open source projects. I d prefer to spend more time on them, but spending he amount of time
      Message 2 of 19 , Apr 7, 2006
        This is a complicated subject. I have similar feelings about my own
        open source projects. I'd prefer to spend more time on them, but
        spending he amount of time I do already is already becoming a
        financial difficulty. I, like many others, take donations, but my
        experience has been so so. It seems a few projects (like Firefox)
        garner 99% of the donations that people make to open source projects,
        leaving them with a gluttany of $ while other very important projects,
        like OpenSSL, struggle to just keep going. As long as Exiv is always
        made availble under either a GPL or LGPL license that I can link with
        I'll be pretty happy. If exiv2 starts being used commercially I'd hope
        commerical users would contribute changes in exiv2 proper back into
        it, rather than fork and maintain their own internal version. Out of
        curiosity, how many others besides yourself have copyright to any
        parts of the exiv2 code? If you were finally reimbursed for commerical
        licenses of exiv2, like Trolltech is for Qt uses in commerical
        settings are you planning on dividing this up between contributors
        based on how much work they've put into the project (seems like you
        and Brad are like 90%)?
        -Will

        On 4/7/06, Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@...> wrote:
        > Here is a subject for discussion. What's your opinion on this?
        >
        > There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use the
        > Exiv2
        > library in their proprietery software. Most suggested changing the license
        > to
        > LGPL, someone now appears serious about a commercial offer.
        >
        > Technically and legally, it seems feasible to use a dual-licensing model
        > for
        > Exiv2: a choice of GPL and a commercial license. (Real companies that are
        > doing this include MySQL and Trolltech (Qt).) Of course, I could only
        > re-license the code for which I own the Copyright, which includes most of
        > the
        > library right now. Also, there is a precedence of some sort, the Vizrea
        > agreement (http://www.exiv2.org/whatsnew.html#5).
        >
        > The main intention for Exiv2 is to contribute it to the open-source
        > community
        > under the GPL. On the other hand, if it turns out that it could at the same
        > time pay for some of the time invested to develop and support it, why not?
        >
        > However, the concern and question is whether this would deter people from
        > investing their time to contribute to Exiv2 or in some other way negatively
        > affect the open-source project? What do you think?
        >
        > Andreas
        >
        > PS: For those not on the list:
        > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/exiv2/
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/exiv2/
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > exiv2-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        --
        --------------------------------------------------------
        Will Stokes wstokes (at) gmail.com
        Album Shaper http://albumshaper.sf.net
        --------------------------------------------------------
      • Brad Schick
        One problem with direct licensing (and the resulting needing to own all copyrights) is that you end up being unable to reuse other GPL code or freely accept
        Message 3 of 19 , Apr 8, 2006

          One problem with direct licensing (and the resulting needing to own all copyrights) is that you end up being unable to reuse other GPL code or freely accept contributions. I’m pretty sure companies like MySql and Trolltech do not accept contributions from outsiders.

           

          I assigned my copyrights to Andreas when I added stuff to the library, and Exiv2 could have a standard agreement for people to sign before contributing. Then others could contribute, but Exiv2 would still not be able to make good use of random GPL code on the net. Also I assume some people would not sign an agreement like that.

           

          Another alternative is to dual license with the GPL and another more permissive license like the LGPL or MPL. Then customers could choose between licenses. GPL when they want to combine it with other GPL code, or LGPL/MPL when they want to great a “larger work” that is proprietary. I think the MPL works well for that purpose, but it is possible that some companies may not understand how that works and just stay away unless it is licensed to them directly. To make money you could sell support contracts or custom development work. Unfortunately in that scenario you would be getting paid for additional work rather than the work you’ve already done on the library. And I have my doubts about how many companies would actually pay for support if they could use the library for free in a proprietary project.

           

          Tough choice. Maybe the best alternative for making it a real business is to continue owning all copyrights and licensing directly to 3rd parties.

           

           

          -Brad

           

           

           


          From: exiv2@... [mailto: exiv2@... ] On Behalf Of Will Stokes
          Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 6:16 AM
          To: exiv2@...
          Cc: Gilles Caulier; Francisco J. Cruz; Patrice Boissonneault
          Subject: Re: [exiv2] Duallicensing model for Exiv2?

           

          This is a complicated subject. I have similar feelings about my own
          open source projects. I'd prefer to spend more time on them, but
          spending he amount of time I do already is already becoming a
          financial difficulty. I, like many others, take donations, but my
          experience has been so so. It seems a few projects (like Firefox)
          garner 99% of the donations that people make to open source projects,
          leaving them with a gluttany of $ while other very important projects,
          like OpenSSL, struggle to just keep going. As long as Exiv is always
          made availble under either a GPL or LGPL license that I can link with
          I'll be pretty happy. If exiv2 starts being used commercially I'd hope
          commerical users would contribute changes in exiv2 proper back into
          it, rather than fork and maintain their own internal version. Out of
          curiosity, how many others besides yourself have copyright to any
          parts of the exiv2 code? If you were finally reimbursed for commerical
          licenses of exiv2, like Trolltech is for Qt uses in commerical
          settings are you planning on dividing this up between contributors
          based on how much work they've put into the project (seems like you
          and Brad are like 90%)?
          -Will

          On 4/7/06, Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@...> wrote:
          >  Here is a subject for discussion. What's your opinion on this?
          >
          >  There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use the
          > Exiv2
          >  library in their proprietery software. Most suggested changing the license
          > to
          >  LGPL, someone now appears serious about a commercial offer.
          >
          >  Technically and legally, it seems feasible to use a dual-licensing model
          > for
          >  Exiv2: a choice of GPL and a commercial license. (Real companies that are
          >  doing this include MySQL and Trolltech (Qt).) Of course, I could only
          >  re-license the code for which I own the Copyright, which includes most of
          > the
          >  library right now. Also, there is a precedence of some sort, the Vizrea
          >  agreement (http://www.exiv2.org/whatsnew.html#5).
          >
          >  The main intention for Exiv2 is to contribute it to the open-source
          > community
          >  under the GPL. On the other hand, if it turns out that it could at the same
          >  time pay for some of the time invested to develop and support it, why not?
          >
          >  However, the concern and question is whether this would deter people from
          >  investing their time to contribute to Exiv2 or in some other way negatively
          >  affect the open-source project?  What do you think?
          >
          >  Andreas
          >

        • maciek9billion
          I think Brad brings up a good point with not being to accept outside code. Then again, I don t really see any major functionality on the horizon that exiv2
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 9, 2006
            I think Brad brings up a good point with not being to accept outside
            code. Then again, I don't really see any major functionality on the
            horizon that exiv2 would need outside libraries for (though I'm not
            familiar with the roadmap).

            As far as having to assign copyright, as a potential contributor, I
            wouldn't really have a problem with it. On the one hand, dual
            licensing does sort of totally defeat the purpose of the GPL, but on
            the other hand, it does help sustain the project. I think you should
            go ahead with it...

            -Maciek

            --- In exiv2@..., Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@g...> wrote:
            >
            > Here is a subject for discussion. What's your opinion on this?
            >
            > There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use
            the Exiv2
            > library in their proprietery software. Most suggested changing the
            license to
            > LGPL, someone now appears serious about a commercial offer.
            >
            > Technically and legally, it seems feasible to use a dual-licensing
            model for
            > Exiv2: a choice of GPL and a commercial license. (Real companies
            that are
            > doing this include MySQL and Trolltech (Qt).) Of course, I could only
            > re-license the code for which I own the Copyright, which includes
            most of the
            > library right now. Also, there is a precedence of some sort, the Vizrea
            > agreement (http://www.exiv2.org/whatsnew.html#5).
            >
            > The main intention for Exiv2 is to contribute it to the open-source
            community
            > under the GPL. On the other hand, if it turns out that it could at
            the same
            > time pay for some of the time invested to develop and support it,
            why not?
            >
            > However, the concern and question is whether this would deter people
            from
            > investing their time to contribute to Exiv2 or in some other way
            negatively
            > affect the open-source project? What do you think?
            >
            > Andreas
            >
            > PS: For those not on the list: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/exiv2/
            >
          • Brad Schick
            The MPL and LGPL probably defeat the larger social purposes of the GPL from RMS s perspective, but it would not defeat getting code contribution back to Exiv2.
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 9, 2006

              The MPL and LGPL probably defeat the larger social purposes of the GPL from RMS’s perspective, but it would not defeat getting code contribution back to Exiv2. Both the LGPL and the MPL require changes to Exiv’s code be made available when the library is redistributed. It’s just that the LGPL and MPL would allow Exiv2 binaries (modified or not) to be combined with proprietary binaries to produce larger works. But if someone modified Exiv2 code in the process, they’d still have to share those modifications (and only those).

               

              The reason to dual license instead of just using the LGPL or MPL is to remain “compatible” with other GPL code. Allows other GPL projects to use Exiv2. Although I guess there would still be problems with using outside GPL code in Exiv2 since it could not be placed under the LGPL or MPL.

               

              But my main concern is that using either the LGPL or MPL would remove a signification incentive for closed-source companies to pay for Exiv2.

               

              -Brad

               

               


              From: exiv2@... [mailto: exiv2@... ] On Behalf Of maciek9billion
              Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:57 PM
              To: exiv2@...
              Subject: [exiv2] Re: Duallicensing model for Exiv2?

               

              • I think Brad brings up a good point with not being to accept outside
                code. Then again, I don't really see any major functionality on the
                horizon that exiv2 would need outside libraries for (though I'm not
                familiar with the roadmap).

                As far as having to assign copyright, as a potential contributor, I
                wouldn't really have a problem with it. On the one hand, dual
                licensing does sort of totally defeat the purpose of the GPL, but on
                the other hand, it does help sustain the project. I think you should
                go ahead with it...

                -Maciek
                 
            • Andreas Huggel
              Comments from Gilles; they didn t get through on the list. ... Subject: Re: Duallicensing model for Exiv2? Date: Friday 07 April 2006 16:23 From: Gilles
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 9, 2006
                Comments from Gilles; they didn't get through on the list.

                ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

                Subject: Re: Duallicensing model for Exiv2?
                Date: Friday 07 April 2006 16:23
                From: Gilles Caulier <caulier.gilles@...>
                To: Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@...>
                Cc: exiv2@..., "Francisco J. Cruz" <fj.cruz@...>,
                Patrice Boissonneault <patrice@...>

                On Friday 07 April 2006 06:15 am, Andreas Huggel wrote:
                > Here is a subject for discussion. What's your opinion on this?
                >
                > There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use the
                > Exiv2 library in their proprietery software. Most suggested changing the
                > license to LGPL, someone now appears serious about a commercial offer.

                Using LGPL is my preferred way but...

                >
                > Technically and legally, it seems feasible to use a dual-licensing model
                > for Exiv2: a choice of GPL and a commercial license. (Real companies that
                > are doing this include MySQL and Trolltech (Qt).) Of course, I could only
                > re-license the code for which I own the Copyright, which includes most of
                > the library right now. Also, there is a precedence of some sort, the Vizrea
                > agreement (http://www.exiv2.org/whatsnew.html#5).
                >
                > The main intention for Exiv2 is to contribute it to the open-source
                > community under the GPL. On the other hand, if it turns out that it could
                > at the same time pay for some of the time invested to develop and support
                > it, why not?
                >
                > However, the concern and question is whether this would deter people from
                > investing their time to contribute to Exiv2 or in some other way negatively
                > affect the open-source project?  What do you think?

                ... sure in this case, and only if money contribution is real, a dual
                licensing is a good choise, like Qt/Mysql does.

                But in all cases, you need to respect GPL rules to preverse the future about
                Open source...

                If you use this way, take a care to explain very well the new license rules in
                web project page.

                A real fan (:=))

                Gilles Caulier
              • Andreas Huggel
                ... Yes, that is an important point. There are a couple of requested features for which it will make sense to use other code. The most imminent is i18n
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 9, 2006
                  On Monday 10 April 2006 03:57, maciek9billion wrote:
                  > I think Brad brings up a good point with not being to accept outside
                  > code. Then again, I don't really see any major functionality on the
                  > horizon that exiv2 would need outside libraries for (though I'm not
                  > familiar with the roadmap).

                  Yes, that is an important point. There are a couple of requested features for
                  which it will make sense to use other code. The most imminent is i18n
                  support, which should probably be done with GNU gettext. Another candidate is
                  an XML parser, e.g., for support of an Exiv2 XML file format or for XMP
                  metadata.

                  The considerations for such 3rd party tools would then need to include (a)
                  whether they are licensed under GPL compatible terms and (b) whether they are
                  compatible with the proprietary license.

                  -ahu.
                • Andreas Huggel
                  For the original choice of license, the main goal was to contribute the library to the open-source community. I narrowed it to *GPL because these are the most
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 9, 2006
                    For the original choice of license, the main goal was to contribute the
                    library to the open-source community. I narrowed it to *GPL because these are
                    the most widely used open-source licenses and chose GPL because the GNU
                    project prefers that (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html). As
                    predicted there, I have in the meantime indeed received requests from
                    companies to change the license to LGPL so that they can use it, with exactly
                    the predicted argumentation. On the other hand, there has so far not been any
                    similar request from an open-source project which uses a GPL incompatible
                    license.

                    As pointed out, if I add a commercial license, this will defeat some of the
                    intentions of the GPL. It would be to experiment to what extent the Exiv2
                    open-source project can sustain itself. For a fee, the proprietary license
                    would remove the GPL requirement to disclose the source code with which Exiv2
                    is combined and it could at the same time ensure e.g., that under this
                    license, Exiv2 will only be re-distributed in binary form as part of another
                    product and that changes are still fed back and their copyright assigned to
                    me (although I wouldn't really expect any significant contributions through
                    this channel).

                    -ahu.


                    On Monday 10 April 2006 06:21, Brad Schick wrote:
                    > The MPL and LGPL probably defeat the larger social purposes of the GPL from
                    > RMS's perspective, but it would not defeat getting code contribution back
                    > to Exiv2. Both the LGPL and the MPL require changes to Exiv's code be made
                    > available when the library is redistributed. It's just that the LGPL and
                    > MPL would allow Exiv2 binaries (modified or not) to be combined with
                    > proprietary binaries to produce larger works. But if someone modified Exiv2
                    > code in the process, they'd still have to share those modifications (and
                    > only those).
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > The reason to dual license instead of just using the LGPL or MPL is to
                    > remain "compatible" with other GPL code. Allows other GPL projects to use
                    > Exiv2. Although I guess there would still be problems with using outside
                    > GPL code in Exiv2 since it could not be placed under the LGPL or MPL.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > But my main concern is that using either the LGPL or MPL would remove a
                    > signification incentive for closed-source companies to pay for Exiv2.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -Brad
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > _____
                    >
                    > From: exiv2@... [mailto:exiv2@...] On Behalf Of
                    > maciek9billion
                    > Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:57 PM
                    > To: exiv2@...
                    > Subject: [exiv2] Re: Duallicensing model for Exiv2?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > * I think Brad brings up a good point with not being to accept outside
                    > code. Then again, I don't really see any major functionality on the
                    > horizon that exiv2 would need outside libraries for (though I'm not
                    > familiar with the roadmap).
                    >
                    > As far as having to assign copyright, as a potential contributor, I
                    > wouldn't really have a problem with it. On the one hand, dual
                    > licensing does sort of totally defeat the purpose of the GPL, but on
                    > the other hand, it does help sustain the project. I think you should
                    > go ahead with it...
                    >
                    > -Maciek
                  • Andreas Huggel
                    ... There is a function to decode the lens from Exif.Nikon3.LensData, which is the result of a project by Robert Rottmerhusen. For this code I wouldn t want to
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 10, 2006
                      On Friday 07 April 2006 21:15, Will Stokes wrote:
                      > Out of curiosity, how many others besides yourself have copyright to any
                      > parts of the exiv2 code? If you were finally reimbursed for commerical
                      > licenses of exiv2, like Trolltech is for Qt uses in commerical
                      > settings are you planning on dividing this up between contributors
                      > based on how much work they've put into the project (seems like you
                      > and Brad are like 90%)?

                      There is a function to decode the lens from Exif.Nikon3.LensData, which is the
                      result of a project by Robert Rottmerhusen. For this code I wouldn't want to
                      ask for the assignment of copyright. It would simply not be there in a
                      commercial version.

                      Besides, there have only been a few other code contributions and on a smaller
                      scale. That includes things like your original Olympus makernote code and a
                      recent update to the Canon makernote by Patrice. Some of these I re-wrote,
                      but the more recent stuff I'd have to check in detail regarding copyright.
                      Also, there are two functions from other projects, used only on certain
                      platforms: getopt for Windows (BSD license) and timegm (public domain).

                      Most contributions, equally valuable, are in other forms: bug reports and help
                      with debugging, ideas for new features, time spent to answer questions on the
                      forum or for discussions by email and of course Brad's support for hosting
                      and sponsoring the website, repository and bug-tracking system.

                      I have not yet thought of what to do with the money, if I really go down this
                      path. Channeling some back to contributors would be fair, we can make this
                      the subject of another discussion.

                      -ahu.
                    • Andreas Huggel
                      Cool, thanks for your feedback. To summarize, the main points brought up are: + The change should be communicated clearly on the website + Commercial users
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 14, 2006
                        Cool, thanks for your feedback. To summarize, the main points brought up are:

                        + The change should be communicated clearly on the website
                        + Commercial users should have to feedback their changes
                        + Code contributions require assignment of Copyright to me
                        + Only 3rd party code compatible with the GPL and the proprietary license
                        should be considered for use with the library
                        + The money should be shared with contributors / used to encourage
                        contributions

                        In particular, I was interested whether a dual-licensing model would
                        negatively impact contributions to the project. While there are valid
                        concerns, nobody seems to feel strongly that this would seriously impact
                        contributions and the general feedback is quite supportive of the idea.

                        So I'll start to offer Exiv2 under a commercial license for a fee, in addition
                        to the GPL'd version. Will keep you posted.

                        Andreas


                        On Friday 07 April 2006 12:15, Andreas Huggel wrote:
                        > Here is a subject for discussion. What's your opinion on this?
                        >
                        > There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use the
                        > Exiv2 library in their proprietery software. Most suggested changing the
                        > license to LGPL, someone now appears serious about a commercial offer.
                        >
                        > Technically and legally, it seems feasible to use a dual-licensing model
                        > for Exiv2: a choice of GPL and a commercial license. (Real companies that
                        > are doing this include MySQL and Trolltech (Qt).) Of course, I could only
                        > re-license the code for which I own the Copyright, which includes most of
                        > the library right now. Also, there is a precedence of some sort, the Vizrea
                        > agreement (http://www.exiv2.org/whatsnew.html#5).
                        >
                        > The main intention for Exiv2 is to contribute it to the open-source
                        > community under the GPL. On the other hand, if it turns out that it could
                        > at the same time pay for some of the time invested to develop and support
                        > it, why not?
                        >
                        > However, the concern and question is whether this would deter people from
                        > investing their time to contribute to Exiv2 or in some other way
                        > negatively affect the open-source project?  What do you think?
                        >
                        > Andreas
                        >
                        > PS: For those not on the list: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/exiv2/
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/exiv2/
                        >  
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > exiv2-unsubscribe@...
                        >  
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      • roger_j_larsson
                        How does these mix? ... and ... Suppose a commercial user feedback their copyrighted code... It is necessary to make it clear that the commercial users
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 27, 2006
                          How does these mix?
                          --- In exiv2@..., Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@g...> wrote:
                          > + Commercial users should have to feedback their changes
                          and
                          > + Code contributions require assignment of Copyright to me
                          > + Only 3rd party code compatible with the GPL and the proprietary
                          > license should be considered for use with the library

                          Suppose a commercial user feedback their copyrighted code...
                          It is necessary to make it clear that the commercial users feedback
                          HAS to be GPL and that they has to assign copyright to you!

                          > + The money should be shared with contributors / used to encourage
                          > contributions

                          This is generally hard to do. How to share. All equal?
                          Relative lines of code contributed? How to compare single
                          line bugfixes with pages of new (buggy) code?

                          I see few alternatives:
                          1. Keep the money yourself.
                          (Use some of the money to buy equipment whose support need
                          to improve)
                          2. Setup a company (with other major contributors on the board).
                          all money goes to this company
                          as (if) revenue grows let it hire contributors.
                          You first :-)
                          There are few ways to earn money when releasing OpenSource code.
                          * One is support
                          to help the user to make it work
                          - the worse code you have the better?
                          * One is to implement specific features (or fix specific bugs)
                          - I want this feature badly!
                          The user can implement this feature himself but that requires
                          time to understand the code, time to do it, time to distribute
                          the change (if GPL or LGPL)
                          If you can do it for less. Then you have a bussines case.
                          - the worse code the better?

                          Money to encourage contributions? Then why have we contributed
                          to date?

                          * I have this itch.
                          -> I can not afford to hire someone to do it
                          -> It is fun!
                          -> I do it myself
                          I could keep it to myself (since the GPL only requires me to
                          make source needed for binaries I distribute) and wait for
                          someone to request this feature. Then I could say - I do it
                          for $100...

                          Hmm... an idea
                          Suppose I had announced that I have decoded "Nikon AFFocusPosition"
                          and to the list instead of posting python code.
                          Then a board could vote how much money it would be worth.
                          I could contribute in several ways:
                          1. Text description on how it works.
                          2. Like my working source (but really for another project - Python)
                          3. A proper patch for exiv2 [I could do that]
                          4. A proper patch for exiv2 with the additional feature of
                          determined sensor positions.
                          Of cause case 4 would be more valuable than case 1. Knowing that
                          I might have taken the extra time to study exiv2 code to be able
                          to make a proper patch. And might even have made the necessary
                          investigations needed to find out sensor positions...

                          Could this scheme work? i.e. no money for past contributions
                          only for future?

                          >
                          > In particular, I was interested whether a dual-licensing model
                          would
                          > negatively impact contributions to the project. While there are
                          valid
                          > concerns, nobody seems to feel strongly that this would seriously
                          impact
                          > contributions and the general feedback is quite supportive of the
                          idea.

                          Your license will be like Trolltech for Qt-library,
                          MySQL AB for mySQL.

                          If you develop GPL code you may use it freely.
                          If for some reason you do not like to share, do not expect us to
                          share the library...

                          I do think that this is the best model!

                          /RogerL
                        • Andreas Huggel
                          ... I think it s enough to require that they assign the copyright to me. That s part of the license text. -ahu.
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 27, 2006
                            On Thursday 27 April 2006 16:13, roger_j_larsson wrote:
                            > How does these mix?   
                            > --- In exiv2@..., Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@g...> wrote:   
                            >
                            > > + Commercial users should have to feedback their changes   
                            >
                            > and   
                            >
                            > > + Code contributions require assignment of Copyright to me   
                            > > + Only 3rd party code compatible with the GPL and the proprietary   
                            > > license should be considered for use with the library   
                            >
                            >    
                            > Suppose a commercial user feedback their copyrighted code...   
                            > It is necessary to make it clear that the commercial users feedback   
                            > HAS to be GPL and that they has to assign copyright to you!   

                            I think it's enough to require that they assign the copyright to me. That's
                            part of the license text.

                            -ahu.
                          • Andreas Huggel
                            It looks like this project will have EUR 750 soon. (I m jumping the gun a bit, the deal is not yet closed.) I d like to use that money to at least symbolically
                            Message 13 of 19 , Apr 27, 2006
                              It looks like this project will have EUR 750 soon. (I'm jumping the gun a bit,
                              the deal is not yet closed.) I'd like to use that money to at least
                              symbolically reward/encourage contributions.

                              Exiv2 lives in a tiny niche and if we get this and a second deal this year, I
                              would say we achieved the target. If there are three deals next year, we will
                              be able to report a 50% jump in sales!

                              So we will all still need other sources of income. What I'm looking for is for
                              contributors to be able to go out and proudly announce to their nagging wife
                              or girlfriend that the hard work and late nights are paying for the drinks.
                              And then go back and happily spend the next two days hacking again.
                              (This is not meant to be sexist, but I think we're just guys here. If not, all
                              the better, and let's hear if it works the same the other way around :)

                              Also, we may run out of funds soon, so there won't be a guaranteed
                              compensation for future work. I take it that everyone's motivation to
                              participate in the project is something more meaningful than to look for a
                              few bucks.

                              The difficult part is how to apportion. Who should get how much?

                              Please feedback your thoughts.

                              Got to sign off now... ;)
                              Andreas
                            • andre_selmanagic
                              ... excuse me if you got the email twice. i just stopped using yahoo a long time ago and if you write back to the previous mail-address, i won t get it, so
                              Message 14 of 19 , Dec 7, 2007
                                ----------------------------------------
                                excuse me if you got the email twice. i just stopped using yahoo a
                                long time ago and if you write back to the previous mail-address, i
                                won't get it, so please reply to andre.selmanagic@...
                                ----------------------------------------

                                hello Andreas,

                                i do have a question about the duallicensing-model ... we are somehow
                                in the middle. we are developing a software for sorting images by
                                color and want to use Exiv2 for extracting the thumbnail-exif-data to
                                make our application faster.
                                the thing is: it is a university-project. The software (ImageSorter/
                                http://mmk.f4.fhtw-berlin.de/?page_id=88) is free, but not open-source
                                for specific reasons.

                                Would we have to pay a fee when using Exiv2???

                                thanks a lot for your help.

                                best regards,
                                andré


                                --- In exiv2@..., Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Here is a subject for discussion. What's your opinion on this?
                                >
                                > There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use
                                the Exiv2
                                > library in their proprietery software. Most suggested changing the
                                license to
                                > LGPL, someone now appears serious about a commercial offer.
                                >
                                > Technically and legally, it seems feasible to use a dual-licensing
                                model for
                                > Exiv2: a choice of GPL and a commercial license. (Real companies
                                that are
                                > doing this include MySQL and Trolltech (Qt).) Of course, I could only
                                > re-license the code for which I own the Copyright, which includes
                                most of the
                                > library right now. Also, there is a precedence of some sort, the Vizrea
                                > agreement (http://www.exiv2.org/whatsnew.html#5).
                                >
                                > The main intention for Exiv2 is to contribute it to the open-source
                                community
                                > under the GPL. On the other hand, if it turns out that it could at
                                the same
                                > time pay for some of the time invested to develop and support it,
                                why not?
                                >
                                > However, the concern and question is whether this would deter people
                                from
                                > investing their time to contribute to Exiv2 or in some other way
                                negatively
                                > affect the open-source project? What do you think?
                                >
                                > Andreas
                                >
                                > PS: For those not on the list: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/exiv2/
                                >
                              • Roger Larsson
                                andré, No, you are not in the middle (IMHO). Read the license - pure GPL not LGPL. From the home page. License Exiv2 is free software; you can redistribute
                                Message 15 of 19 , Dec 7, 2007
                                  andré,

                                  No, you are not in the middle (IMHO).
                                  Read the license - pure GPL not LGPL.

                                  From the home page.

                                  "License
                                  Exiv2 is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the
                                  terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
                                  Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
                                  version.
                                  Alternatively, Exiv2 is also available with a commercial license, which allows
                                  it to be used in closed-source projects. Contact me for more information."

                                  Why do you expect that you can use exiv2 (that comes with source) to make
                                  a program (that does not come with source)? That is completely against
                                  everything Rickard Stallman wanted with the license.

                                  Lets assume you have a killer application in coming, lets also assume that
                                  you are using several other GPL licensed libraries for two reasons:
                                  - quicker to market
                                  - already proven (debugged)
                                  You give your application away to get marketshare. When your userbase
                                  starts to grow you begin to develop replacements for the GPL libraries, and
                                  develop other features.
                                  When done with that you release the improved application free from GPL
                                  code and for a fee!
                                  - Who did work to help you become a market leader but did not get payed?

                                  /RogerL

                                  On fredag 07 december 2007, andre_selmanagic wrote:
                                  > ----------------------------------------
                                  > excuse me if you got the email twice. i just stopped using yahoo a
                                  > long time ago and if you write back to the previous mail-address, i
                                  > won't get it, so please reply to andre.selmanagic@...
                                  > ----------------------------------------
                                  >
                                  > hello Andreas,
                                  >
                                  > i do have a question about the duallicensing-model ... we are somehow
                                  > in the middle. we are developing a software for sorting images by
                                  > color and want to use Exiv2 for extracting the thumbnail-exif-data to
                                  > make our application faster.
                                  > the thing is: it is a university-project. The software (ImageSorter/
                                  > http://mmk.f4.fhtw-berlin.de/?page_id=88) is free, but not open-source
                                  > for specific reasons.
                                  >
                                  > Would we have to pay a fee when using Exiv2???
                                  >
                                  > thanks a lot for your help.
                                  >
                                  > best regards,
                                  > andré
                                  >
                                  > --- In exiv2@..., Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@...> wrote:
                                  > > Here is a subject for discussion. What's your opinion on this?
                                  > >
                                  > > There have been a handful of queries from people who wanted to use
                                  >
                                  > the Exiv2
                                  >
                                  > > library in their proprietery software. Most suggested changing the
                                  >
                                  > license to
                                  >
                                  > > LGPL, someone now appears serious about a commercial offer.
                                  > >
                                  > > Technically and legally, it seems feasible to use a dual-licensing
                                  >
                                  > model for
                                  >
                                  > > Exiv2: a choice of GPL and a commercial license. (Real companies
                                  >
                                  > that are
                                  >
                                  > > doing this include MySQL and Trolltech (Qt).) Of course, I could only
                                  > > re-license the code for which I own the Copyright, which includes
                                  >
                                  > most of the
                                  >
                                  > > library right now. Also, there is a precedence of some sort, the Vizrea
                                  > > agreement (http://www.exiv2.org/whatsnew.html#5).
                                  > >
                                  > > The main intention for Exiv2 is to contribute it to the open-source
                                  >
                                  > community
                                  >
                                  > > under the GPL. On the other hand, if it turns out that it could at
                                  >
                                  > the same
                                  >
                                  > > time pay for some of the time invested to develop and support it,
                                  >
                                  > why not?
                                  >
                                  > > However, the concern and question is whether this would deter people
                                  >
                                  > from
                                  >
                                  > > investing their time to contribute to Exiv2 or in some other way
                                  >
                                  > negatively
                                  >
                                  > > affect the open-source project? What do you think?
                                  > >
                                  > > Andreas
                                  > >
                                  > > PS: For those not on the list: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/exiv2/
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Andreas Huggel
                                  hi andré, if you use a gpl compatible license for your own software, then you can use the gpl d version of exiv2. else you need a commercial license. it
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Dec 7, 2007
                                    hi andré,

                                    if you use a gpl compatible license for your own software, then you can
                                    use the gpl'd version of exiv2. else you need a commercial license. it
                                    doesn't matter whether you distribute your software free of charge.
                                    others have reconsidered their licensing model, eg, yahoo decided to
                                    release the latest version of their flickr uploadr as open source with
                                    a gpl license after initially considering to use a commercial version
                                    of exiv2.

                                    andreas


                                    On Friday 07 December 2007, andre_selmanagic wrote:
                                    > hello Andreas,
                                    >
                                    > i do have a question about the duallicensing-model ... we are somehow
                                    > in the middle.
                                    > we are developing a software for sorting images by
                                    > color and want to use Exiv2 for extracting the thumbnail-exif-data to
                                    > make our application faster.
                                    > the thing is: it is a university-project. The software (ImageSorter/
                                    > http://mmk.f4.fhtw-berlin.de/?page_id=88) is free, but not
                                    > open-source for specific reasons.
                                    >
                                    > Would we have to pay a fee when using Exiv2???
                                    >
                                    > thanks a lot for your help.
                                    >
                                    > best regards,
                                    > andré
                                  • Robert S
                                    Thanks for the clarification Andreas. You have provided some important insight about the wisdom of distributing source with the application. For a moment
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Dec 7, 2007
                                      Thanks for the clarification Andreas. You have provided some
                                      important insight about the wisdom of distributing source with the
                                      application.

                                      For a moment there, I thought I had subscribed to some kind list
                                      lorded over by a insane heretic preacher and I was expecting to be
                                      struck dead by brimstone and lightening at any moment, for breaking
                                      the most important of commandments: Thou shalt never question the
                                      license. Crash!!! Boom!!! thou are'st struck dead and condemned to
                                      everlasting torment for having the unmitigated gall to question the
                                      almighty Starstruck.

                                      Robert S

                                      --- In exiv2@..., Andreas Huggel <ahuggel@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > hi andré,
                                      >
                                      > if you use a gpl compatible license for your own software, then you can
                                      > use the gpl'd version of exiv2. else you need a commercial license. it
                                      > doesn't matter whether you distribute your software free of charge.
                                      > others have reconsidered their licensing model, eg, yahoo decided to
                                      > release the latest version of their flickr uploadr as open source with
                                      > a gpl license after initially considering to use a commercial version
                                      > of exiv2.
                                      >
                                      > andreas
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > On Friday 07 December 2007, andre_selmanagic wrote:
                                      > > hello Andreas,
                                      > >
                                      > > i do have a question about the duallicensing-model ... we are somehow
                                      > > in the middle.
                                      > > we are developing a software for sorting images by
                                      > > color and want to use Exiv2 for extracting the thumbnail-exif-data to
                                      > > make our application faster.
                                      > > the thing is: it is a university-project. The software (ImageSorter/
                                      > > http://mmk.f4.fhtw-berlin.de/?page_id=88) is free, but not
                                      > > open-source for specific reasons.
                                      > >
                                      > > Would we have to pay a fee when using Exiv2???
                                      > >
                                      > > thanks a lot for your help.
                                      > >
                                      > > best regards,
                                      > > andré
                                      >
                                    • andre_selmanagic
                                      thanks for the quick response! that s all i wanted to know. now we will have to decide! :) @Roger: i understand your concerns. but as i mentioned: it is a
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Dec 8, 2007
                                        thanks for the quick response! that's all i wanted to know. now we
                                        will have to decide! :)

                                        @Roger: i understand your concerns. but as i mentioned: it is a
                                        scientific university-project and will never be commercial. the reason
                                        it is not open-source are the same you mentioned why there should be a
                                        fee for exiv2 for closed-source-projects. my professor fears that
                                        someone simply steals the scientific results and makes his own
                                        application for money (and from the money the person earns he/she
                                        could make a lot better program in the end, because he/she has more
                                        possibilities). so i really completely understand what you mean! but
                                        ... please ... not that aggressive next time! there was no reason to
                                        answer that way. thank you anyway :)

                                        best regards and thanks for the responses and information,
                                        andré
                                      • Roger Larsson
                                        ... I was not aggresive (IMHO) as I did not write that you had set you up for being sued for copyright infringement... :-) But OK, my writing Why do you
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Dec 8, 2007
                                          On lördag 08 december 2007, andre_selmanagic wrote:
                                          > thanks for the quick response! that's all i wanted to know. now we
                                          > will have to decide! :)
                                          >
                                          > @Roger: i understand your concerns. but as i mentioned: it is a
                                          > scientific university-project and will never be commercial. the reason
                                          > it is not open-source are the same you mentioned why there should be a
                                          > fee for exiv2 for closed-source-projects. my professor fears that
                                          > someone simply steals the scientific results and makes his own
                                          > application for money (and from the money the person earns he/she
                                          > could make a lot better program in the end, because he/she has more
                                          > possibilities). so i really completely understand what you mean! but
                                          > ... please ... not that aggressive next time! there was no reason to
                                          > answer that way. thank you anyway :)

                                          I was not aggresive (IMHO) as I did not write that you had set you
                                          up for being sued for copyright infringement... :-)

                                          But OK, my writing "Why do you expect..." was too hash,
                                          as you in fact did ask (and thus did not expect) - sorry for that.

                                          But lets take it from the pro-GPL (Dual license) point of view.
                                          Are you writing a report on the "scientific results", will that be public?
                                          (OK, it might be years away...)
                                          What will then prevent someone to implement a better program from the report?
                                          Releasing it as GPL source might actually help you to defend agains
                                          competing commercial implementations, have they made it themselves
                                          clean room or looked at your source?
                                          Releasing source as GPL is NOT to put it in public domain - it is still
                                          protected by copyright, and no one can use it without following the
                                          rules in their turn.
                                          And maybe someone wants to use your software (as a library) in their
                                          proprietary program...
                                          Your application might be great but it is hard to compete against full
                                          featured image catalog software. (I would like to have it integrated into
                                          digikam)

                                          /RogerL

                                          >
                                          > best regards and thanks for the responses and information,
                                          > andré
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and will be delivered to recipients shortly.