1. If a vendor distributes binary of GPLd code to "X", they can impose upon "X" that if "X" does distribute vendor's GPL code without approval, "X" would breach contract.
2. A vendor can "rent" / "lend" a binary to "X", in which case the vendor wouldn't have to share the code.
I'm pretty sure neither of those are legal. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllow...
Re:PfSense Is Closed Source
by 35fbe7d3d5b9 on Monday January 25, 2021 @09:45PM
(#25911814)
Under the terms of the GPL, I believe the first is absolutely verboten, the second feels shaky.
However, if you have the rights to dual-license the code, either of those would be just fine under whatever second license you'd like to cook up.
Re:PfSense Is Closed Source
by ignoramous on Tuesday January 26, 2021 @12:26AM
(#25912896)
As an example, here's ZeroTier moving from GPLv3 to BSL: https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/commit/52a166a71#dif...
GPL or its stronger copyleft counterpart, AGPL, can be later closed source too, afaik, at least under two scenarios:
1. Original developer owns all copyrights (CLAs).
2. There's no other contributor but the original developer.
MPLv2 and EPLv2 resist close sourcing the already open sourced bits to the same extent as xGPL, except xGPL is intrusively more viral than these two.
Also, I read somewhere that GPL lets one impose strange restrictions:
1. A vendor distributes binary of GPLd code to "X" (among other non GPLd things), and can impose upon "X" that if "X" does share vendor's GPL code without approval, "X" would breach contract (not necessarily of GPLd code, but of other non-GPLd things).
2. A vendor "rents" / "lends" binaries to "X", in which case the vendor doesn't have to share the binary's GPLd code.
IANAL.
Edit: Clarification. Ref: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2338/can-i-us...