Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> 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.
The idea is that the copyright holder doesn't need a license to do
anything, so they can do whatever they want, including doing something
which doesn't allow other people to do anything because of some
inconsistency.
Justin
Reply to: