> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You can release software under multiple licenses if you're the copyright > > holder. If you're not a copyright holder you can still release something > > derived from it under the terms of the gpl if the other copyright doesn't > > have restrictions beyond what the gpl has.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 03:40:48PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Ah, yes, the copyright holder can do this. But given two programs (A > under the GPL and B under another copyleft license), I can't produce a > derived work of both A and B without problems - the only way to satisfy > the licenses would be for my work C to be released under both, and I > don't have the right to do that since this would now effectively mean > that there was a version of A under the other license and a version of B > under the GPL. The non-GPL copyleft license I've most frequently encountered is the LGPL. If A is GPLed and B is LGPLed, it's legal to produce C which is derived from A and B without getting any further permissions. [B isn't the GPL, but its terms do not impose anything which is more restrictive than the GPL's terms.] Thus, I believe that your "I can't produce" assertion can not always be the case. That said, people licensing their code under the LGPL often also license it under the GPL so that people can drop the LGPL license if they wish. Thus, even if the LGPL were somehow incompatible with the GPL, there would still be examples of B where you wouldn't need further permissions to derive a work from A and B. -- Raul
