GPL own code?

[pseudorandom21]

Can I use my own code that I slapped a GPL on and provided to sourceforge in my own commercial application?
In that way, does the GPL somehow relinquish my own rights to my IP?

[pritaeas]

Simply put, no.

[pseudorandom21]

Simply put, no.

No to the first question, or the second?

[pritaeas]

Sorry. GPL does not make exceptions, GPL parts requires GPL whole. Don't know by heart, but I think the MPL does allow this.

[pseudorandom21]

If I write code and have a copy of the file with a different copyright on it (copyrighted as my IP), can it be used in a commercial application without worry if I, the author, also publish the exact same material under the GPL?

[Narue]

Can I use my own code that I slapped a GPL on and provided to sourceforge in my own commercial application?

What does being commercial have to do with anything? The GPL doesn't stop you from charging money, it's all (mostly) about the openness of the source code. Ideally you would use the LGPL for a library that's both open source and used in the commercial application because it's easier to draw a clean line between licenses.

In that way, does the GPL somehow relinquish my own rights to my IP?

Yes. You could use the code to a certain extent and with sufficient changes not be legally bound by the GPL, but by placing the code under the GPL you've given up your right to make a verbatim copy under closed source.

However, prior art plays a part too. If you take code from a commercial application where you own the IP and release it as a new project under the GPL (assuming you're not violating the license of the commercial application), the commercial application isn't in violation of the GPL as long as you can prove that it existed prior to the GPL release. As for taking code from the commercial project that exists in the GPL project after both exist, you'd probably need to hire a lawyer to make sure that there's a legal leg to stand on. ;)

[pseudorandom21]

LGPL, got it.
No one cares aboot my code anyway.

[Rashakil Fol]

The people in this thread are apparently completely wrong, ignorant hicks.

Can I use my own code that I slapped a GPL on and provided to sourceforge in my own commercial application?

Yes.

In that way, does the GPL somehow relinquish my own rights to my IP?

No. It only gives other people rights to your IP.

Yes. You could use the code to a certain extent and with sufficient changes not be legally bound by the GPL, but by placing the code under the GPL you've given up your right to make a verbatim copy under closed source.

This is completely wrong.

[pritaeas]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially

Sorry all, am a little rusty on the subject I guess.

[jwenting]

This is completely wrong.

Narue is exactly right. The intrusive nature of the GPL ensures that as soon as you put anything under it, all derived works are under it as well.
AFAIK it's never been tested what size would be considered a derived work (1%, 0.01%?), but you can't simply cut out the GPL headers and call it something else.

[Rashakil Fol]

Narue is exactly right. The intrusive nature of the GPL ensures that as soon as you put anything under it, all derived works are under it as well.
AFAIK it's never been tested what size would be considered a derived work (1%, 0.01%?), but you can't simply cut out the GPL headers and call it something else.

Nope. Since you hold the copyright on your own code you can distribute it however you like. (Unless you have signed a contract with somebody such as an exclusive licensing deal which says otherwise, of course.)

[jwenting]

Nope. Since you hold the copyright on your own code you can distribute it however you like. (Unless you have signed a contract with somebody such as an exclusive licensing deal which says otherwise, of course.)

The GPL constitutes such a deal, or at least lays claim to that.
Effectively any GPL code will be in the public domain, or rather owned by the people owning the GPL (the EFF I think).
By placing your code under GPL, you give up ownership of it and replace it with "stewardship" (until someone decides to take your code and run with it ("forking") that is, or you are dethroned by your committers.

[Rashakil Fol]

The GPL constitutes such a deal, or at least lays claim to that.
Effectively any GPL code will be in the public domain, or rather owned by the people owning the GPL (the EFF I think).

First of all nobody "owns" the GPL. The Free Software Foundation wrote it. Or RMS wrote it before creating the FSF. It does not transfer ownership of copyright to anybody. You still own copyright to your source code and you can do whatever you want with it.

(Regarding the question of whether anybody can "own" copyright on a legal document such as a license: that's still an open question, I think -- in the U.S. at least -- and some lawyers find the idea preposterous. On the other hand the FSF has a clause in the default version of the GPL that lets them and only them upgrade the license to a later version. So in some sense you are granting the FSF an unlimited license to use and redistribute your source code. (The FSF abused this privilege only once, as far as I know, to help Wikipedia upgrade its data from one FSF license to another, incompatible license.) I recommend removing the ugrade clause from the GPL. For the record I'm talking about the GPL v2.0. I haven't read v3.0.)

By placing your code under GPL, you give up ownership of it and replace it with "stewardship" (until someone decides to take your code and run with it ("forking") that is, or you are dethroned by your committers.

All that happens is that other people have the right to redistribute your code and derived works (such as binaries) under the terms of the license. It doesn't affect the author's rights at all. This is why you can see examples of companies making code available under the GPL and selling proprietary licenses at the same time. For example, Qt was distributed like this. If you wanted to build an application using Qt and distribute it without releasing source code, you had to pay Trolltech for a license.