[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Right - as long as all code was dual licensed - the implication of Jim's
> >statement was that dual-licensing our sources would allow us to benefit
> >from other GPLv3 code, but if we did pull that in, it would be GPLv3-only
> >and not dual licensed, and distros would have no choice on using it.
>
> But if source is dual licensed, aren't you free to take a copy, modify it
> and redistribute the changes under one license only?
This is the real problem with dual licensing and this is why I strongly
recommend not to dual license.
Writing more in depth about the problems, would force me to start a license
discussion and I don't like to do this in this list. For now believe me that
the pssible problems are not primarily GPLv3 related but of more general kind.
Even if there were no problems, it would cause people to believe that Sun does
not know whether the decision pro CDDL was OK and this is a problem that is
independent from possible changes that re redistributed under one license only.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
