Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be
source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL
by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't
release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL.
On 11/5/05, Arc <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take
> > my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want.
> > (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do,
> > but I could do it.)
> I disagree.
> By licensing software under the GPL, the author has made a written offer to
> provide the source code, and if they later refuse to provide the source code,
> it's quite conceivable that a lawyer could force them to in court.
> After all, a license is a form of a contract, and the GPL grants rights to the
> source code, so it's pretty clear to even a layman.
> If you want a more definite answer, email Eben Moglen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Diversity is the Fuel of Evolution,
> Conformity its Starvation.
> Be Radical. Be New. Be Different.
> Feed Evolution with Everything You Are.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484