Re: A clarification with dual licensing
On 11/08/14 12:14, Paul Wise wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote: since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free? It's really a matter of semantics, but I would argue that since being able to be distributed is one of the DFSG freedoms, then all non-distributable software is non-free software -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e85d15.50...@bitmessage.ch
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
or the and word glues these two licenses together ? Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. And what about a situation where: - package A MIT links to SSL - package B GPL links to package A - package B does not link to SSL in confgure.ac or during complation Yet, ldd package B shows libssl ? It is a violation ? -- Dariusz Dwornikowski, Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ddwornikowski/ room 2.7.2 BTiCW | tel. +48 61 665 29 41 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140811090425.ga30...@blackstar.cs.put.poznan.pl
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
Dariusz Dwornikowski writes (Re: A clarification with dual licensing): And what about a situation where: - package A MIT links to SSL - package B GPL links to package A - package B does not link to SSL in confgure.ac or during complation Yet, ldd package B shows libssl ? It is a violation ? Yes, that is a violation. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21480.55955.519795.252...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
The question is, in this case, can I choose a license to be MIT or the and word glues these two licenses together ? Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e7dafb.6000...@bitmessage.ch
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote: [...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
On 11/08/14 07:26, Francesco Ariis wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote: [...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license. Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when? They are normally DFSG free, but when linked with OpenSSL without an exception, they aren't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e7e3f4.3090...@bitmessage.ch
Re: A clarification with dual licensing
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote: since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6HphCt6NA2km22-m23=Vz4pF7_0VvR0dm4M+XiBK=h...@mail.gmail.com
