At 03:07 23/2/01 +0100, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
>Peter,
>
>Thanks for your reply. My question was really about the logical meaning of
dual licensing.
It is generally interpreted as either APL or GPL - the user gets to decide.
The only difference is that any code contributed to Apache CVS would have
to be dual licensed aswell.
>2) Either all of (G1, G2, ..., Gn) must be satisfied or all of (A1, A2,
..., Am) must be satisfied but not both group of conditions.
>
>Interpretation 2 is probably correct.
yep
>What happens to derivative work licensed under GPL/APL? Must it be GPL/APL
>too? In particular, what happens to fresh code that links to the original
>GPL/APLed code...
It gets a choice of which license to support (or both if it wants). The
main reason for dual licensing (besides religion) is to enable optional
parts of product be linked against GPL code.
>Doesn't dual licensing leave the door wide open for abuse? If tomcat were
dual
>licensed, then one could usurp the tomcat label (by invoking GPL terms) and
>have code with a totally different license link with tomcat (by invoking APL
>terms).
Nope - if they accept GPL then the could usurp the name but they would have
to keep it under the GPL.
>This situation is not logically equivalent to 2 but who is going to prove
>otherwise?
copyright owner who in this case is Apache Foundation (or whatever it is
called).
>Are you confused? I know I am.
Scarily this is a rather simple case - try interpreting the LGPLs
interaction in different circumstances and your hair will curl ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
