On Saturday 08 July 2006 08:41, Don Armstrong wrote: > We've stepped into -legal territory now. MFT set to send messages only > to -legal; please respond there only.
Sure. > 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.] That's fine and that is what I have in my /usr/share/doc/libqt3-mt/copyright Qt 3.3 is dual licensed under the QPL and the GPL... So I see no worries to distribute CDDL and GPL dual licensed works the same way, unless somebody proves me wrong. > Of course, you have to actually own the copyright on the parts that > you are (re)licensing but that's probably obvious. ;-) Yes, it is pretty obvious. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]