On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 4:59 PM Kuno Woudt <kuno(a)frob.nl> wrote:
Why would you be locked-out of your code?
Any kind of proprietary licensing of copyleft-next code effectively turns
copyleft-next into a permissive license for everyone using that copyleft-next
licensed project. Obviously you as the copyright-holder don't need a
license to use or sell your own code.
Indeed, it's not like I'm unable to use my own code, however I can't
still use it in the way I've described (i.e. as a minor part of a
proprietary product) and still keep it available as copyleft-next
open-source.
In essence at that point, I would be better off just switching (for
future releases) from copyleft-next to the GPL family.
> And if my above use-case didn't convince, then how about
this other
> plausible use-case: say a company has developed an algorithm (say
> image compression, etc.) that was included in some proprietary
> software; then said company wants to open-source only that algorithm,
> but under a copyleft license to still keep it's edge on competitors,
The entire purpose of the clause is to eliminate that "edge on competitors".
If you use copyleft-next on code which you also offer as a proprietary
license -- then copyleft-next becomes permissive to ensure everyone who
legally obtained that code licensed under copyleft-next can compete with
you by making their version also proprietary.
But this "edge off on competitors" makes sense for whole products not
for smaller parts as in my example with a company that would open
source under copyleft-next only an algorithm (or something else) that
is non essential to the whole product.
Thus my suggestion to allow relicensing under proprietary terms if the
relicensed work isn't "the whole product". (I know this is hard to
word in such a way that is enforceable from a legal point of view, but
at least this route could be explored.)
Ciprian.