Raul Miller wrote:
On 11/4/05, Lewis Jardine <debian@catbox.co.uk> wrote:(Tangentially, could someone please clarify this: to pass on the work dual-licensed, do you need to comply with both licenses, or does the copyright statement attached to the work that you've legitimately distributed under one of the licenses allow your recipient to choose one or the other just like you could? I'm thinking the latter, but I may be wrong.)If you really need to comply with "both licenses" that's really just one license with the terms from "both". Usually when someone says "dual license" they mean that people have the option of choosing between two licenses.
I'll clarify my question: You have in your possession a dual-licensed work (in the conventional sense of dual-licensing; for sake of argument let's say GPL + MPL) for which you aren't the copyright holder. You know you have the option of using it under either the GPL or the MPL, but what you want to do is distribute it so that whoever received it also has the option of choosing GPL or MPL.
If you were to pick either GPL or MPL, and not modify the work, does the recipient only have your choice of licence to pick from, or can they still choose either?
Does this change if the way you distributed the work is not compatible with the other license?
Does this change if you modified the work? -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD