On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 18:00, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2003, at 11:52, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>
> > I will
> > point out that further distributors who wish to distribute AIE and
> > INVERT will essentially be bound by the GPL with regards to AIE, even
> > though it is under the MIT/X11 license: they received it under the
> > terms of the GPL, not under the terms of the X11 license.
>
> They had to receive it under the terms of the GPL. They also received
> AIE under the terms of the MIT X11 license. The work is sort-of
> dual-licensed, in the sense that the X11 license is compatible with the
> GPL.
>
Indeed, one can distribute MIT/X11 licensed software under the terms of
the GPL without breaking any of the terms of either licence (hence the
term "compatible with the GPL").
If you were to separate INVERT and AIE again, then thanks to this clause
in the GPL, you are free to distribute AIE under the pure terms of
MIT/X11 without the additional restriction of the GPL terms.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,
do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
separate works.
(lit. that a combined non-GPL work and GPL-work must be licenced under
the terms of the GPL, but if you separate them again the non-GPL work
may be considered unencumbered again).
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part