On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 16:32, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Given: > > A := BSD to all > > B := BSD to few, GPL rest > > C := GPL to all > > > > A => free > > C => free > > > So you disagree with the claim that dual-licensing something under A > and B is the same as licensing it under B?
Yes. It's different. If its dual licensed under A and B, then I can
chose to release my changes under A, and ignore B.
Just like how Qt was/is dual-licensed under both the QPL and the GPL; I
can use Qt under the GPL, and forget all about the QPL.
> Note that your Pascal-style assignments could be misunderstood. For
> example, licence B does not grant a GPL-licence for the original work
> to anyone; it merely requires that modifications be released under the
> GPL. Similary A, does not grant a BSD-licence for the original work;
> it merely requires modifications to be BSD-licensed (thus allowing the
> original authors to take those modifications proprietary).
If I can't release under than same terms as the original work, then the
license clearly fails DFSG 3 ("...allow them to be distributed under the
same terms...")
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
