On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 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 > > By "developer", do you mean "copyright holder"? He can legally do > whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public > a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with.
Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... -- Chris "`The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona
