Quoting Marius Amado Alves ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > This is just words, but anyway: dual-licensing involves a closed source > license as much as an open one; in business terms, even more, because > that's where the money is. So dual-licensing is really less an "open > source model" than a "closed" one. I'd really like to be shown any > essential flaw in this reasoning.
If you're claiming the _only_ purpose of dual-licensing is to support proprietary business models, then there are any number of counter-examples. Offhand, the one that comes to mind is the AIC7xxx SCSI host adapter block-device driver, which, when last I checked, was dual-licensed GPL and BSD in order to be used by both Linux and BSD kernels. (Please note that the term "closed source" is unclear and pretty nearly meaningless. Therefore, I use "proprietary" to denote software not available under OSD/DFSG-compliant terms.) -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
