On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 10:09:04AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Hmm? > > Given the choice of the dual licenses: > "You can take my software, and use it under the GPL" > or > "You can take my software, and use it under something that > sort of looks like the GPL, but does't allow you to modify > files foo.c, bar.c, or baz.c in this certain way." > doesn't make too much sense. > > Well, legally, maybe it does. Correct. > But practically, everyone would take the first license, and just > forget the second one. Probably. But that's not *our* problem. > GPL dual-licensing only works when you want to remove GPL-imposed > restrictions. Strictly speaking, our concerns are only whether a license is legimitate, and whether it's DFSG-free. IMO we should also issue advisory opinions on licensing when asked that will make it easier for us to fulfill our Social Contract (e.g., mindless license proliferation is not good for the Free Software community). However, that someone would wwant to dual-license a work under the GPL and something extremely unpalatable shouldn't really concern us. Your example above is a poor one because licensors often offer some kind of carrot to offset the stick, e.g., waiving the must-distribute-source requirement of the GPL. -- G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpa_qt1bT9ra.pgp
Description: PGP signature