Yes, but the point is that dual-licensing is "above" all this. If you prefer, an app published under license A is one edition of the work, and the same app published under license B is another edition of the work. As the user, you choose edition A or edition B, and nothing in A affects B and vice versa.
Numerous software projects are dual-licensed, for example Qt ( https://www.qt.io/licensing/open-source-lgpl-obligations ). If you choose Qt’s "commercial license", you’re not bound at all by any terms of the LGPL or GPL license, and vice versa. A. On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 11:54 PM Lawrence D'Oliveiro < [email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 17:55:24 +0200, Adam Twardoch (List) wrote: > > > If the whole licensing construct is "you can choose the A set of > > terms, or the B set of terms", and the A set of terms (license) says > > "only this license grants you permission" or something like that — > > that clause only kicks in if you "choose" license A. If you "choose" > > license B, then A is of no interest of you. > > During the discussion that led up to the formulation of GPLv3, Eben > Moglen explained, more than once, the difference between a “contract” > and a “licence”. GPL is a “licence”. Here are the parts I quoted again: > > GPLv2 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html> > (section 5): > > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not > signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify > or distribute the Program or its derivative works. > > and GPLv3 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html> (section 9): > > You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or > run a copy of the Program. ... However, nothing other than this > License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered > work. > > Saying “you are not required to accept” is not a “term” of the licence; > it’s a simple statement of fact. > > -- Adam Twardoch (to contact directly, remove "list." from e-mail address)
