On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
<dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On 11 May 2010 22:16, Weston Ruter <westonru...@gmail.com> wrote:
<----- Snip ----->
>> More on why dual licensing is a good idea:
>> http://benalman.com/news/2010/02/on-licensing-my-code/
> Dual licensing is a bad idea cause it further spreads license profiliation =)

Not true - it prevents many people from taking a license, modifying a
single clause or small set of them, and creating a whole new license.

Additionally, by dual-licensing a work, I am thereby free to create my
own GPL projects and products in my own spare time under the GPL (more
well known) but still offer the work under a weaker license like MIT
(less well known) when I'm working on products that are not always
suitable for GPL'd software, e.g. part of my job.

Can I still use the MIT code under my GPL code? Yes.  But I may not
know that provision of the GPL or I might not be aware of the
provisions of the MIT license.  Offering under the GPL as well as the
MIT is not a bad thing - unless you really don't want to allow non-OSS
distribution of your work ever.  But for some people who don't care as
strongly about that, there is only the convenience of knowing that
this is, for sure, under the GPL and if later versions of the GPL
become incompatible with MIT licenses, there is a much stronger chance
they will allow incorporation of the GPL'd work into them (and a
guarantee if the "and later versions" clause of GPL licensing is


sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

Reply via email to