Right, this is potentially a 'dual-license' scenario, where the copyright holders distribute the code under two (or more) distinct licenses, in separate distributions. If you receive the code under a non-open-source license, the presence of the same (or similar) code in another location under an open source license isn't necessarily relevant; you got the code with an attached license, so its terms apply to you. If you obtain the code via other means, with an attached open source license, then that license's terms apply to you.
This definitely sounds like an unnecessarily complicated situation, but in the end, you can only use the code under the license terms that were attached when you received it. If no license was attached, then you probably don't have any rights to use it at all. On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Michael R. Bernstein < mich...@fandomhome.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Chris Ochs <ch...@ochsnet.com> wrote: > >> I know they are open source because the authors have a website or github >> repo with the open source license. They just aren't including that >> license in the copy that they release through this company. > > > If they are the copyright holders to the code on Github, they may also > release it without a license through the company. > > IANAL, TINLA, etc. > > - Michael Bernstein > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
