Re: dual licensing
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> 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...
That's my understanding. The copyright holder can do whatever they
want. Yes, doing such a thing is bizarre, and I can't think of a
reason why anyone would do it. It doesn't actually grant anyone else
any modify+distribute rights, and is arguably suficiently inconsistent
to not grant anyone any rights. But it could be done and I don't see
that its "illegal". If it is, just use a "my interpretation of the
GPL is that this is not illegal" clause.