On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being
> different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is
> supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, and
> anybody not contributing back or taking commercial advantage in a closed
> source solution is in its total rights under the GPL3 license.
Except that the GPLv3 explicitly covers this case (from §7):
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.
If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.
If the relevant source files do not have these terms, then they do not
apply. If they are present, then we can remove them, because the GPLv3
says we can. Either way, it should be fine. This is a distinct
difference between the GPLv2 and the GPLv3.
--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature