Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license.
Andrew On 11/5/05, Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > > > > So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license. > > > > > > And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license. > > > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written > > offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of > > the GPL, but anyone else can choose between the GPL and the MIT > > license. > > This is true for any developer who releases under both licenses, but any > developer may release under just one license and then only comply with that > one. > > In the effort for expanding understanding, here's why that is, by looking at > the > way the GPL works... > > > The GPL has it's legal enforceability from copyright law. GPL'ed software is > copyrighted, which restricts all but the most fringe fair uses to the > software. > No user has the right to use or redistribute the software in most ways under > this state of non-license. > > The GPL, being a license, also serves as a sort of unsigned contract between > the > two parties. The author, by releasing per software under the GPL, offers in > writting to provide certain things to 3rd parties, including source code, > which > is what prevents deceptive authors from releasing under the GPL but not > complying with it themselves. > > Then the copyright holder provides a license which permits non-exclusive, > royalty-free access to the software under certain conditions. We're all > probobally very familiar with what the GPL provides, so I'll leave it there. > > Now, with dual licensing, the copyright holder offers two different licenses. > The purpose of any license is to permit activity which the copyright, by > itself, > will not. It cannot legally restrict beyond what copyright already does. > > Nothing in the MIT license, using this as an example (there's a number of > proprietary licenses used too, see MySQL or ReiserFS for good examples), says > you must also comply with the GPL license. Nothing in the GPL license says > that > you must also comply with the MIT license. Therefore, you have a choice, > since > both of these licenses independently grant you access to the code. > > If you, as a developer, user, reseller, etc choose to only use one license, > that > is your right, as granted by the original copyright holder. When you slap > your > copyright on your contributions, assuming you're adding or changing it, you > may > choose to only license your changes under the GPL, or under the MIT, as both > permit changes to be added and redistributed. > > Now, most dual licensed software requires that, in order for your changes to > make it back into the main distro, you must license under both licenses. Some > also require that you give the copyright of your changes to the original > author. > > See reiserfsprogs/README for an example of this, where you're allowed not only > to keep your copyright but, if you dual license for commercial/proprietary > sale > (ie, company wants to use reiserfs in non-free software) he may cut you a > check > for non-trivial contributions. > > None of this is required. You can, in the above example of GPL+MIT, release a > fork of the code under the GPL exclusivly (or MIT exclusivly) if the author > won't accept your contribution unless it's also dual licensed. That is, if > you > write a really great new optimized search routine for MySQL but you don't want > your additions to be anything but GPL, MySQL won't accept it, but that doesn't > mean you can't offer a fork or patchset for others to use. > > > Now, having a single software package where two or more different licenses > cover > different parts of the code is a different issue, one that was hinted to > earlier > on the thread. In this case, those licenses apply only to the parts of the > package which they cover, and this may or may not be in violation of the GPL > depending on how those pieces "fit together". If they're ment to be compiled > into a single binary, or linked against each other, and the licenses aren't > compatable, the maintainer for that package needs to be "schooled". > > It's perfectly fine, however, for a library to be released under a BSD license > with an example mini-app which uses the library licensed under the GPL and > documentation licensed under the FDL (or CC Attrib-AsIs or any other combo). > A GPL'ed application can link against BSD-licensed library and the docs, which > are entirely seperate, can be licensed however the author chooses. > > A similar situation can arise from patent licenses, which are similar but of > an > animal all their own. If the patent license (a license which grants access to > some patented method or procedure) is GPL-incompatable the author must be very > careful that whatever software implements it not be linked directly against > either the GPL or LGPL, as section 7 of the GPL and section 11 of the LGPL > would > render such software illegal for 3rd parties to distribute, as enforced by the > copyright holder. While the author perself may not sue someone over this, any > 3rd party contributor/copyright-holder who licenses their contribution under > the > (L)GPL may, and that's politically bad for all of us. > > > More than you probobally wanted to know on the subject, but hope it clears up > all the confusion on the issue. :-) > > -- > > Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution, > Conformity its Starvation. > Be Radical. Be New. Be Different. > Feed Evolution with Everything You Are. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
