Can I release code as GPL but offer the same code under LGPL on request? [closed]

Question

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.

Closed 6 years ago.

Improve this question

I've seen some instances of licenses which use clauses to the effect of "licensed under GPL but may provide LGPL on request". As sole owner of the software, is this a viable license scheme?

I mainly ask because I'd like to release software under GPL in general to encourage people to contribute and for those contributions to be open source. However in the process I don't won't to completely discourage anyone from using the code for useful applications. I figure if I had the requirement that they must contact me first most people would just be lazy and GPL their software (assuming it's something to be released).

I'm not sure how realistic this license is though since it also seems like the first time somebody asked them for their LGPL code they could then redistribute that themselves under the LGPL license thus bypassing the requirement to contact me.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

The license of your software is either GPL or LGPL. Sure you as coypright owner/sole author can offer different terms, but that's normally known anyway, so there is no need to add a "may" sentence anyway.

That additional sentence only make you look like, that the you are licensing under GPL for tactical reasons. But GPL is not tactical but strategical. By design we are enforcing our software user's rights with the GPL. As authors we give a lot.

Why are you concerned that your generous offer is not accepted by open hands, embraced by your software users?

Maybe your software is not useful? Well, why care? You would have done nothing wrong releasing under GPL. If there is some user out there in the future, she would know which rights exactly are passed. Also she might contribute back by extending the software again and passing it on.

So before just jumping on such sentences, better discuss whether or not GPL and/or LGPL is fitting for your kind of software. You have not shared any detail about your software, so how should one give useful feedback?

Also are you aware of GPL v3 family and the possibility to add exceptions for certain users/projects?

Answer 2

First of all, while you may own the copyright to the code you write (and therefore can release it under whatever license you want) you don't necessarily own the copyright to the works of other contributors, unless they specifically sign the copyright over to you when they commit their changes. That is to say, if you want to encourage other people to contribute to your project, you should pick a license and stick with it. Dual-licenses primarily come from larger organizations who either assume the copyright of commits, or simply don't accept outside contributions.

Second, the mentality that users must contact you before using code for a specific purpose runs completely contrary to the philosophy of both the GPL and the LGPL. The point of those licenses is that the author doesn't get a say in how the software is used, beyond requiring that the source code be available when the binaries are redistributed.

IMO, you should probably try to evaluate what you're really trying to accomplish here. If you what you are looking to encourage people to contribute to an open-source project, the GPL does not have a monopoly on encouraging contributions. Plenty of projects are successful under Apache, BSD, LGPL, and other open-source licenses. Individuals and organizations that modify open-source software are often more than happy to contribute their changes---besides being the decent thing to do in most cases, it's a headache to maintain separate branches. (And there's nothing in the GPL that forces anyone to send their contributions back to you.)