> On Saturday 01 September 2007 05:40:52 Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
> > because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors,
> > they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two
> > licenses can use the file in either way.... but if they distribute
> > the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with thed.
> > existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have
> > statements which say that the license may not be removed.
>
> So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the
> dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing
> deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the
> license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do
> whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted
> prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until
> otherwise stated by the developper.
That is utterly false.
All of the licenses we use in the open source world
(1) Do not permit removal of the license by a non-author
(2) Do not permit modification of the license by a non-author.
If a license does not permit you to do the above, then you can't do
it, and that is EXACTLY how some people (including you) are attempting
to incorrectly interpret dual licenses.
Perhaps English is your second language, because my posting was very
clear. Please read what I said again. You cannot modify a
developer's license, and then distribute the file. That is the
problem at hand.
When an author declares (or, even, does not declare) Copyright, the
get certain rights. Then they surrender some rights to their audience --
with or without conditions. If a right is not surrendered, you don't
have it.
If the license does not say you may distribute the file without the
license, you can't. If the license does not say you may modify the
license, you can't.
