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. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying. If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating where to find the applicable terms. If the relevant source files do not have these terms, then they do not apply. If they are present, then we can remove them, because the GPLv3 says we can. Either way, it should be fine. This is a distinct difference between the GPLv2 and the GPLv3. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature