Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> skribis: > On 12/29/2015 12:14 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> skribis: >> >>> The reason is that situations continue to pop up where the ability to >>> dual-license some code would be helpful for the project (similar to how >>> we added GPL+eCos to GNU libmicrohttpd in the past). If we had the >>> copyright with GNUnet e.V., then at least we had a relatively small >>> group (the annually elected "Vorstand") representing the developers in a >>> position of making decisions about dual-licensing. >> >> I’m guessing the second license would necessarily be more permissive >> than the GPL, no? Wouldn’t this amount to effectively relicensing >> everything under a permissive license? > > It would not necessarily be more permissive.
What I mean is that for a stronger copyleft such as AGPL or a hypothetical GPLv4, nothing special is needed since the license already permits such “upgrades.” The only thing is doesn’t permit is the other direction. > For example, I have in the past had cases where people asked for a > commercial license for GNU libmicrohttpd, which is already under > LGPL. And that commercial license was with the clause that they'd > share all the extensions they write under LGPL as well. So this was > totally not rational, but the world simply isn't rational. Hmm what was the “commercial license” then? It doesn’t sound very rational, indeed. :-) Cheers, Ludo’. _______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
