Re: Dual licensing [Was: Re: cdrtools]
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.
Sure.
> 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.
> 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.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: