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

Re: dual licensing



On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 00:40:31 -0500 Justin Pryzby wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
[...]
> > 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.

So is mine.

> The copyright holder can do whatever they
> want.

As long as (s)he is the sole copyright holder (or, more generally, as
long as all the copyright holders agree), yes.

> Yes, doing such a thing is bizarre,

I would say inconsistent.

> and I can't think of a
> reason why anyone would do it.

To fool people into thinking (s)he is releasing free software or "open
source" software, while (s)he's not actually doing that.
In other words, misleading PR: (s)he states "it's open sourced under the
GPL!" and some people can be tricked into believing her/his claims...

Fortunately other people may be paying more attention and uncloak
her/him... (be vigilant!).


-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpn2byZcrHgo.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: