At 00:08 23.02.2001 -0800, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
>> 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). This situation is not logically equivalent to 2 but who is going to
>> prove otherwise? Are you confused? I know I am. Ceki
><snip>
>
>I don't understand this situation.... could you please explain?
Sure. A license to be worth the electrons it's written on must be enforceable. Who is
going to do the enforcing? In the GPL/APL case there are two bodies involved, the FSF
and the ASF. Say product X is dual GPL/APLed but it breaches both the GPL terms and
the APL terms. The FSF folks will look at X and say, yes it breaches the GPL but it's
OK since the user is probably using the APL terms. The ASF people will look at X and
say, oh, it's breaching the APL but the user probably intends to use the GPL.
For the license to be enforced, the FSF and ASF must realize the double-breach and
work together to enforce both the licenses as defending only one license is not
enough. If the project X is small this is not going to happen. If X is an important
project like perl or Linux, someone will notice but taking concerted action is a
different matter altogether. It's a bit convoluted I must admit. Ceki
----
Ceki Gülcü Web: http://qos.ch
av. de Rumine 5 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred)
CH-1005 Lausanne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Switzerland Tel: ++41 21 351 23 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
