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

Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]

George Danchev a écrit :
On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only
to -legal; please respond there only.


On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, George Danchev wrote:
Well, I have the following 'and' vs. 'or' type of licensing
question. While it is clear now that Debian can not distribute a
product when some of its parts are under GPL and the rest are under
CDDL ('and'), is it fine to double-license {GPL|CDDL} the whole
product like Perl does with GPL | Artistic, so either the whole
thing is under GPL or the whole thing under CDDL as accepted by the
licensee. In short, could you double license under two incompatible
licenses ?
As far as I understand it (TINLA, IANAL, YHBW, etc.) so long as there
is a subset of licenses available which you can use to actually
distribute the work, you ignore the licenses which you don't
distribute under. It is a good practice to list the other licenses in
the copyright file as a service to our users, but strictly speaking
they are superfluous. [In the cases where they are not, you're not
actually dual licensing the work.]

That's fine and that is what I have in my /usr/share/doc/libqt3-mt/copyright
Qt 3.3 is dual licensed under the QPL and the GPL... So I see no worries to distribute CDDL and GPL dual licensed works the same way, unless somebody proves me wrong.
Dual licensing is the best way to increase the liberty of the license. Users can choice to use the best license for them, and if all contributions are under the same dual license, the whole source code will be compatible with both license. Double licensing under two incompatible license is the only interesting practice, because they become compatible. If you choose to dual license two compatible license (LGPL/GPL; BSD/GPL), it is useless because the compatibility already exist. Sorry for my bad English.
Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that
you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-)

Yes, it is pretty obvious.

Reply to: