Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll

%% "Glenn A. Thompson" <gthompson@cdr.net> writes:

>> I have no problem believing the GPL and the Apache license clash,
>> although I've never examined the Apache license enough to say.

  gat> MySQL has a commercial license as well. If you want to embed it
  gat> in a commercial product, you can buy a commercial license. This
  gat> seems to fly in the face of the GPL. This dual license concept
  gat> seems to expose a crack in the GPL world.

If you are the sole copyright holder of a work, you can release it under
as many different licenses as you like--and there's absolutely no reason
why those licenses must be consistent with each other.

The people you license it to under the GPL can use it under those terms;
the people you license it to under other licenses can use it under those
terms.

This is not a crack in the GPL, in any way. In fact, the FSF has no
problem with this kind of "dual licensing" at all, IIRC. People who
want to cooperate with the FSF agenda can do so using the GPL'd version,
while people to whom those licensing requirements are not acceptable can
attempt to come to an agreement with the copyright holder to use an
alternative license... most likely one where they have to pay $$ for it,
but they can then use it in ways the GPL does not allow.

Purists like the FSF will definitely not come to any such agreement, of
course, but others might.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <pausmith@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org