Dear All,
I'm seriously thinking of dual-licensing my software library macstl, in the
style of Qt, mySQL, Berkeley DB et. al. with a GPL and a commerical license I
have some questions though.
1. Doesn't the GPL prohibit un-GPL'ing the code? Or does dual licensing rely on
having files with
So, the Creative Commons licenses are not OSI-approved:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
I think there are two licenses that meet the Open Source Definition:
the Attribution license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
...and the Attribution-ShareAlike license:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
1. Doesn't the GPL prohibit un-GPL'ing the code? Or does dual licensing rely on
having files with identical content but different licenses?
If you are the copyright owner, you can issue as many licenses as you please,
and there is no conflict, any more than there is
Hi Evan,
On Jun 4, 2004, at 8:46 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
The Attribution license element requires that the upstream creator's
copyright notices be kept intact; that their names or pseudonyms, if
provided, be included in the work where other authors' names are, as
best as possible for the medium;
I'm aware of the other replies (and FWIW I agree with them), and I can
tell you (the OP) like short, so I'll be really short here, except for
point 4, where I'll make a connection to commercial open source.
1. Doesn't the GPL prohibit un-GPL'ing the code? Or does dual licensing rely on
having
EP == Ernest Prabhakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
EP Well obnoxiousness per se is not part of the OSI criteria,
EP though it will surely get you castigated on this mailing
EP list. :-)
It would be an interesting exercise to see how obnoxious and difficult
a license you could make
No, it's fundamentally not open source at all.
It may be a fine and useful licence for particular objectives, but
please don't call it open source, as it's not that.
Altough all discussions about the use of the term open source always
end in OSI does not own it, it's alright to use it to mean
Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No, it's fundamentally not open source at all.
It may be a fine and useful licence for particular objectives, but
please don't call it open source, as it's not that.
Altough all discussions about the use of the term open source always
end
Rick Moen (and others) suggest the term open source be used only as
defined by OSI. Maybe that would be a good thing, and as I said and
pointed out (and Rick wasn't listening) I never say just open source
tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly
that the vast
9 matches
Mail list logo
