Although I'm not the asker of the question, this still brings to mind the dillemma I haven't quite settled for myself yet. What if, say, instead of dual-licensing the _entire work_, he (the asker of the original question) tweaked it so the _GPL parts_ could be distributed in the package *and also over a website or other free-availability source* _UNDER GPL_, while the 90% that is _ORIGINAL_ is licensed under proprietary or other non-GPL terms?
The GPL Section 2(b): You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
