As James indicates -- the expression "released under dual licences" implies
one project with a choice between two licenses. This seems to be two things
(in a project). Thing1 is open source and Think2 is not. As Kevin said,
Think2 is not open source. Presumably nothing stops you from using
Think1 under the open source license and, in a clean room, writing your own
Think2 implementation (and publishing it as open source so that we can all
benefit from it).
Back in 2015/16 we ran into some projects that has something like what I
thought you were asking: where the code itself was published under and open
source license, but a sample project in a sub directory was published with
a restrictive license that granted the rights to "(*1) use and copy the
Software; and (2) reproduce and distribute the Software as part of your own
software ("Your Software"), provided Your Software does not consist solely
of the Software; and (3) modify the Software for your own internal use.*"
In other words -- the code project was open source, but parts of the repo
were not. So we had to strip those out in our mirror. That license scheme
is no longer being used (I'm pretty sure, thankfully). It was annoying
since it meant we had to look carefully at a repo and see that the license
headers were not consistent.
Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement
>From the Open Source Program Office
<https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo --> Oath - ->
Verizon Media
My work calendar is open for colleagues to see. yo/open-calendars
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:26 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+...@km6g.us> wrote:
> No, usage restrictions are incompatible with the Open Source
> Definition. If the software has such restrictions it cannot be called
> 'open source'.
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:49 AM Ahmed Hassan <ahas...@rapidsos.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All:
> >
> > I found a software on github that is released under dual licences. Parts
> of the software is under Apache licence, the other is under proprietary
> licence. The part of the software that's responsible for user access is
> under proprietary licence.
> >
> > Can someone claim a software to be an open source by restricting number
> of users who can access it for self installation?
> >
> > --
> > Ahmed
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
