"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" <[email protected]> writes:
> just to clarify. > the proposal was to dual-license under > (1) a license termed "GPL + exceptions", which refers to the GPL but > adds a non-commercial clause > (2) a license named "Linux Sampler License" which prohibits commercial > use but *apart from that* grants the same rights as the GPL. That much was already clear. It's still not a coherent license, under either of those conditions, and hence grants no valid license to the copyright holder. > if by the "combination" you mean the "GPL-exceptions" then yes, this > is true, but should have little practical impact. If the effect of the license combination is acknowledged, but has “little practical impact”, why does this matter so much? On the contrary, I think it matters to the extent that getting a valid license matters at all. > esp. i think that if the licensor offers their work simulatenously > under multiple licenses, then those licenses do not affect each other. Regardless, if any of those effective sets of license terms do not form a coherent set of permissions, then that option isn't valid for the recipient. If *all* of the options do that, under different names, then the recipient still has been presented no useful options. -- \ “Better not take a dog on the space shuttle, because if he | `\ sticks his head out when you're coming home his face might burn | _o__) up.” —Jack Handey | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
