I ran across this[1], which is apparently a popular license disclaimer
in the Rust community:
> Licensed under either of Apache License, Version 2.0 or MIT license
at your option.
> Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally
submitted for inclusion in this crate by you, as defined in the
Apache-2.0 license, shall be dual licensed as above, without any
additional terms or conditions.
... this doesn't seem like it's legally valid to my non-lawyer eyes.
For example, if someone was using the code under the MIT license, then
presumably they wouldn't enjoy any of the APL's patent claim
protections. And, if you were a downstream recipient of the code, how
would you know what license you were receiving it under?
Am I missing something here?
[1]: https://crates.io/crates/syn
--
Josh Berkus
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
