John Cowan writes:
> Seth David Schoen wrote:
>
> > It seems unlikely that a license would be successful in the free software
> > world if it attempted to prohibit dual licensing, so no.
>
> Indeed, it would be nonsense. Nobody but the author can license code
> under any particular license, so saying "I license my code under license
> X and no other" is a promise to one's self alone.
I'm thinking of something like this:
If the copyright holder of this package has granted permission
to anyone to redistribute it under the copyright laws on any
terms other than these, or by any instrument other than this
license, then this permission is void, and you have no right
under this license to distribute the software.
In other words, a license could get so offended when an author
dual-licensed some code that it cancels itself. :-)
So it should be possible to have a license which is resistent to use
in dual licensing situations. The author of the licensed code wouldn't
be prohibited from granting the permissions; instead, one of the
permission grants, by its own terms, might be inoperative.
--
Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
