dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Emmanuel Colbus wrote:
> > > My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies
> > > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is
> > supposed to apply to
> > > software, not to documents.
> > Any collection of bits is "software". The GPL works very well for any
> > collection of bits. Some people think that it, particularly the requirement
> > for provision of source code and the nature of permission to distribute in
> > forms other than source code, may have problems when
> > applied to dead-tree printed material. This is easily dealt with
> > by dual-licensing under the GPL and a printing-friendly license of
> > your choice.
> Well actually no it doesn't solve the problem as you have to comply
> with both licenses when dual-licensing.
Thats not what the phrase "dual-licensing" is typically used to mean.
For example, a thing released under dual GPL/MIT license means that
that thing is released under the GPL and under the MIT license.
So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license.
And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license.
You get to choose. Its like the gpl "version 2 or later" clause: "at