Alex Martelli wrote: > Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Richie Hindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>A good solution would be multiple-licensing. You state that the >>>code is (for example) triple-licensed under the GPL, LGPL and BSD >>>licenses. The user of your code decides which license to obey. >>>It's no more work for you, and you can please almost everyone (the >>>only people you won't please are those who believe that there is One >>>True License, and frankly you should ignore them - it's your code). >> >>That's silly, you might as well just use BSD instead of triple >>licensing like that. > > You're pointing out yourself, a few lines lower, while this isn't so: > >>Another downside to BSD is that it becomes impermissible to improve >>Karrigell by transplanting GPL code into it from other programs. Yet > > ...which obviously is not a problem if K is available under either GPL > or BSD at the user's choice: anybody wanting to transplant GPL code into > it will pick the GPL side of the dual-licensing (I don't see any further > advantage in adding LGPL to the mix, maybe I'm missing s/thing...).
If K were to be dual licensed GPL/BSD, Pierre could not take some GPLed third party code, incorporate it into K, and distribute K+3rdparty under both licenses. 3rdparty would always be under the GPL, and the GPL conditions would apply to the combination as a whole. That's the scenario Paul is referring to. Of course, someone who is not Pierre who wants to distribute a web app with K and some third party GPL module can do so just as well if K is only BSD-licensed since BSD is compatible with the GPL. Dual licensing would only be necessary if the alternative licenses were incompatible, e.g. Artistic/GPL like Perl or MPL/GPL like Mozilla. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die." -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
