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. (TBH, is also the only meaning of
"dual-licensing" I'm aware of.)
> 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.
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. 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.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature