With the release of GPL v3 and it's more restrictive copyrights I was wondering who owns a particular app under the standard GNU GPL? I know once released the rights of the license grant anyone the ability to do with the app what is allowed under the GNU GPL. However, once released is it the authors choice how he chooses to release his future versions? For example, if he releases foo version 1 under the GNU GPL, providing he doesn't uses anyone else's code, can he release foo version 2 under a proprietary closed source license? If the author released his code under the GNU GPL does that mean he can't use his own code in his other proprietary apps? If the author doesn't control how his source is released after he first releases it under the GNU GPL v2 how can he take away privledges for future version with GNU GPL v3? Wouldn't he be taking away rights that were guaranteed under the GNU GPL v2? Also does the author control the name of the program under the GNU GPL or is this a seperate copyright? For example, if Sun dropped OpenOffice would OpenOffice continue under the name or would it have to get a new name?

Read the GPL license(s) carefully through. I think it's quite clear if it says that GPL'ed code cannot, for example, be used in a closed-source app if the source code isn't distributed freely. It's the author that decides how he/she releases the app - and that's it. You have to think farther than your nose when dealing with these things. The author is the "owner", but..well, just read the licenses. Also, they do differ as you know - and it says something in there about the different versions of the licenses; read-it-carefully.

If you plan to write a CompletelyBestOperatingSystem under GPL v2, and later decide you want to close the source and start asking money for it, you cannot as far as I understand - you've licensed it open source, and that way it stays.

Read the GPL licenses. Read them again. If you don't understand, buy a lawyer - after all, when it comes to the point when people start fighting, it's the lawyers who endure in the battle.

I'm familar with the GPL, however there are a few things I'm not sure about. As far as I know weren't you able to include open source in commercial apps providing you include the GPL'd source and any modifications you made to it? If not how could companies like Tivo use it? Also SUSE never used to offer free versions of their distro and had programs like YAST which I believe was proprietary.

I knew that once you release source under the GPL that source is always available under the GPL and cannot be taken away from you by anybody. However, GPL version 3 has more restrictions on the license and if the original author can't modify the license then he can't change it to GPL v3. However, he can release new parts as GPL version 3. Although, I believe the license says that any modifications you make to the source must also be released under the same license so wouldn't modifications have to be released under version 2.

I'm not trying to release a product for commercial use I'm just trying to understand the details of the license and how it can be changed when it can't be changed.

SUSE has always been free software, all the free refers to is the source code and distribution of it once you have downloaded/bought that product. Charging for something is perfectly fine it keeps the software alive.

OK, sorry about that I misread b0uncer's post. Still Tivo only posts the source for the parts of the software that are GPL'd and nothing else. I'm still curious about how GPL v2 distributed apps can be made v3. Do the old parts remain v2 and the new parts v3? Doesn't this violate the provision of releasing modifications under the same license (in this case GNU GPL v2)?

Moved: This thread is more suitable in General and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

And now some answers:
It depends. If an app is released under 'gpl 2 or later' (most programs, btw), you can release your modifications under gpl 3. Technically, you take the program under gpl 3 (because you can use any later version than 2) and use the same license for modifications.

If the program is released under GPL 2, you need to move the whole of it to GPL 3. It means - have all the authors agreed. Something nearly impossible for Linux kernel, for example.

So there's a provision in GPL v2 that if the people who wrote the source code choose they can move to v3? Isn't that really no different than the owner changing the copyright for future versions? I'm not really opposed I'm just trying to understand the logic.

Actually that is not quite true. Company "Foo" can certainly switch CompletelyBestOperatingSystem to a proprietary license after the fact, but cannot revoke licenses on previous releases. Sugar tried to pull that crap on their CRM system and failed when the vTiger folks pointed them right back at the license they (Sugar) released the code under.

Once you GPL, MPL, or BSD a product, that release will always be under that license and you cannot revoke it, however you can choose to license it under a dual model if you so wish (Proprietary license for those who wish to derive closed-source products based on your code), or even cancel the product. This does not mean that others won't simply fork the code (XFree96/X.org, SugarCRM/vTiger, and others), and also does not mean that you have the right to release others' GPL contributions under that license (remember, if you accept GPL code from others into your project and you wish to later close it, you must either remove those contributions or work out licensing with those respective authors).

That's what I thought and explains why authors can change their licenses later. I didn't know Sugar tried to pull that. I love their software but that's BS. That would have bullied current users into going with their paid version. You can't just say the programs free for you to use and then say, oh we changed our mind and now you have to start paying for it after they integrate it.

Not in the GPL2 itself. It's in the statement saying that a program is covered by GPL2. In fact, in most cases, it's
When you see such statement, the authors allow you to use GPL version 2 or 3 or 4 and so on. In fact, it means they have released the code under more than one licence

Also, GPL itself describes such situation, but (for an author) allowing >GPL2 is completely optional.

GPL, point 9:

KimVette, sorry I have had some misunderstandings, it seems actually I understood it just like you said it, that the licenses work for the release, but the new releases could be on some other license (did I write it correctly this time? anyway, as you wrote it), but had some <defunct> while putting it into words.

Well, good you people know these. Licenses are like a jungle sometimes..

BTW, what happens if there are 300 authors on some code, and 1 of them just died, and the rest 299 are willing to create a new release under another licence ("move" it under another licence)? Will they simply have no choise but dismiss the idea, as one of the authors is quite unable to agree/disagree?

Nope, they need to remove code written by that one person. With CVS/Subversion etc it's doable even in a big project.