Re: dual licensing
On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm <email@example.com> wrote:
> Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l
> > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written
> > offer for source code
> By "developer", do you mean "copyright holder"? He can legally do
> whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public
> a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with.
Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered
software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as
he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre...
"`The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights.
They don't deserve our sympathy,' he said. `But this isn't about who
they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that
distinguish us from our enemies.' - Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona