We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only
to -legal; please respond there only.
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.]
Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that
you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-)
Don Armstrong
--
THERE IS NO GRAVITY THE WORLD SUCKS
-- Vietnam War Penquin Lighter
http://gallery.donarmstrong.com/clippings/vietnam_there_is_no_gravity.jpg
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
