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

Bug#238245: license choice - consensus on dual MIT/GPL-2 ?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:51:55 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:42:05PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > However, I think you should clarify what you mean by "dual-licensing".
> > 
> > "Dual-licensing" is usually intended to mean that both licenses are
> > being offered and the recipient of the work may choose either one,
> > according to his/her own preferences.
> That is what I meant, yes.

Thanks for clarifying.

> (TBH, is also the only meaning of
> "dual-licensing" I'm aware of.)

It's the usual meaning, indeed, but... one may never be sure,
especially in a situation where dual-licensing seems to be an
over-complicated way to license under the plain Expat/MIT!

> > If this is what you mean, then it should be noted that "dual-licensed
> > under Expat/MIT and GPLv2+" is effectively equivalent to "licensed
> > under the Expat/MIT", since the Expat license's permissions are a
> > superset of GPLv2+ license's ones, and Expat license's restrictions
> > are a subset of GPLv2+ license's ones.
> You're quite right (at least, under most interpretations of the two
> licenses; cause with these things you really never know...).  As in
> other cases of dual MIT/GPL licensing, the point is being clear in the
> fact that recipient can choose both . So that if they know very little
> about licenses, but they know they like (or can use) one of the two in a
> specific context, they will be happy without having to know explicitly
> about license compatibility.

Well, the Expat/MIT license is compatible with countless other licenses.
Following the same reasoning, one could argue that the Debian official
web site should be explicitly multiple-licensed under all of them!

I would disagree, but, well, I am not really convinced about the
Expat/GPL dual-license, either... 

> You might argue that this kind of "communication" precaution is
> pointless for material such as www.d.o content, but after all ... why
> not? I don't see it as confusing.

I think it would make a number of people (wrongly) think that the
Debian Project decision-makers know very little about licenses...

> After all, if someone has to object
> to this choice on the basis that it is too liberal, they will do the
> same even if we present it as "MIT/Expat" only.

This is certainly true, but it was not my point.

 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpvwzd4ckbby.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: