Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-06 Thread Andrew Donnellan
Yes. I meant the copyright holder. Andrew On 11/6/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l > > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-06 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:28:36AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written > > offer for source code and meet all the distribution requirements of > > the GPL, but a

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-05 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Emmanuel Colbus wrote: > > > > > My m

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Andrew Donnellan
On 11/5/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry, I don't understand the relevance. The preamble explains the FSF's > goals in the GPL; it doesn't make promises on behalf of the licensor. > > If you did manage to convince people that the GPL could be used as a stick > against the copyr

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:21:10PM -0800, Arc Riley wrote: > What makes you think Arc isn't my real name? It's a gaelic name that died > out > after the romans invaded and most of the male gaelic names were replaced by > happy christian names. There's a certain amount of cultural sensitivity

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Arc Riley
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:33:03PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be > noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't. > (My impression is "he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach > his name to i

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Glenn Maynard
There's no policy requiring real names on Debian lists, but it should be noted that you'll be taken less seriously by many people if you don't. (My impression is "he doesn't trust what he says enough to even attach his name to it?".) Just FYI. On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:38:21PM -0800, Arc wrote:

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be > source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL > by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't > release under th

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Andrew Donnellan
The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL. Andrew On 11/5/05, Arc <[EMA

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Arc
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take > my program, release it under the GPL and not release source if I want. > (Nobody else could redistribute it, so it'd be a silly thing to do, > but I could do it

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Glenn Maynard
Please don't top-post. On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 07:42:10AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still > can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license. I don't know what you mean by "determine sourcecode", but I can take my progra

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Andrew Donnellan
Just to make myself clear: if you can't determine sourcecode you still can't release under the GPL, even if you dual-license. Andrew On 11/5/05, Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > > > > So if you want, you can use it unde

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Arc Riley
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 06:47:03AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > > > So if you want, you can use it under the terms of the MIT license. > > > > And, if you prefer, you can use it under the terms of the GPL license. > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l > und

Re: dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Andrew Donnellan
On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > > On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Emmanuel Colbus wrote: > > > > My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies > > > > could have be

dual licensing (was: Re: [no subject])

2005-11-04 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:28:02PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 11/4/05, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Emmanuel Colbus wrote: > > > My main concern about this was that such relicensed copies > > > could have been considered not free, but undistributable, as the GPL is > >