>Note that from the point of view of most Linux contributors
>this is not an unfortunate consequence of the GPL, it's
>part of the reason we write Linux stuff in the first place.
>We like it that way. People who disagree can release
>under two licenses, as Larry Wall (perl) does.
I don't understand how someone can release a program under more
than one license without the licenses conflicting.
Lets say I make program "foo". In that program, I include the
standard GPL paraphanalia, and notices... If I also strip those
sources of GPL paraphanalia/notices, and then include some other
license, perhaps some strict copyright, with no modifications,
etc...
Doesn't the second license conflict with the first, and
invalidate one or the other licenses, or both?
If it is valid to do both, then both become pointless. Someone
takes the "foo" sources, and modifies them. When sued, they say
"Oh, I was using the GPL'd sources". Someone else takes the
sources, and modifies them, not releasing the modifications, and
sells commercially. When sued by the GPL folk, they say "Oh, I
was using the commercial copyright, and I've got permission from
the author."
If that is the case, then GPL is meaningless. Perhaps you could
clarify my assumptions, etc... as I just don't understand how
multiple licenses can pertain to GPL software. Either it's GPL,
or not - no?
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocateLinux software galore: http://freshmeat.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/