On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l > > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written > > > offer for source code > > > > By "developer", do you mean "copyright holder"? He can legally do > > whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public > > a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with. > > Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered > software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as > he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... That's my understanding. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. Yes, doing such a thing is bizarre, and I can't think of a reason why anyone would do it. It doesn't actually grant anyone else any modify+distribute rights, and is arguably suficiently inconsistent to not grant anyone any rights. But it could be done and I don't see that its "illegal". If it is, just use a "my interpretation of the GPL is that this is not illegal" clause.
:) Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]