[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dual licensing

On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
> Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <ajdlinux@gmail.com>
> > 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

Reply to: