Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >You seem to be saying that A and C are DFSG-free, but B isn't. So > >something released with license A is free, but software dual-licensed > >with A and B is non-free. I seem to be seeing or imagining some kind > >of paradox here ... > > Given: > A := BSD to all > B := BSD to few, GPL rest > C := GPL to all > > A => free > C => free > > Now, "Dual licensed under A and B" means "A OR B", so we can conclude: > A OR B => free > C OR B => free > > However, without further "givens", we can logically conclude *nothing* > about B.
So you disagree with the claim that dual-licensing something under A and B is the same as licensing it under B? Note that your Pascal-style assignments could be misunderstood. For example, licence B does not grant a GPL-licence for the original work to anyone; it merely requires that modifications be released under the GPL. Similary A, does not grant a BSD-licence for the original work; it merely requires modifications to be BSD-licensed (thus allowing the original authors to take those modifications proprietary). > I think the apparent paradox is coming from confusing "dual license" to > mean "AND" instead of "OR". I don't think so, but the words AND and OR don't mean much in isolation, anyway. (It's all a question of at whose option ...)
