Re: Swiss Ephemeris Public License
Anthony DeRobertis <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> >You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So
> >something released with license A is free, but software dual-licensed
> >with A and B is non-free. I seem to be seeing or imagining some kind
> >of paradox here ...
> A := BSD to all
> B := BSD to few, GPL rest
> C := GPL to all
> A => free
> C => free
> Now, "Dual licensed under A and B" means "A OR B", so we can conclude:
> A OR B => free
> C OR B => free
> However, without further "givens", we can logically conclude *nothing*
> about B.
So you disagree with the claim that dual-licensing something under A
and B is the same as licensing it under B?
Note that your Pascal-style assignments could be misunderstood. For
example, licence B does not grant a GPL-licence for the original work
to anyone; it merely requires that modifications be released under the
GPL. Similary A, does not grant a BSD-licence for the original work;
it merely requires modifications to be BSD-licensed (thus allowing the
original authors to take those modifications proprietary).
> I think the apparent paradox is coming from confusing "dual license" to
> mean "AND" instead of "OR".
I don't think so, but the words AND and OR don't mean much in
isolation, anyway. (It's all a question of at whose option ...)