* brian m. carlson: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:13:59PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: >> Except the issue is not about dual licensing, but about intent being >> different to what the license actually says. i.e. The GPL3 the code is >> supposed to be released under doesn't have these obligations, and >> anybody not contributing back or taking commercial advantage in a closed >> source solution is in its total rights under the GPL3 license. > > Except that the GPLv3 explicitly covers this case (from ยง7): > > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further > restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you > received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is > governed by this License along with a term that is a further > restriction, you may remove that term. [...]
I suggest that we never rely on that clause, ever. First, this clause cannot convey the intent of a copyright holder of an incongruously licensed works nominally covered by the GPL, version 2 or later, but carrying additional restrictions. Second, if two clauses conflict, the problem generally doesn't go away just because one clause says that the other is invalid. (The Python license stack could serve as a precedent, but there, the licenses are stacked differently, the TOS is the most permissive one.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
