Re: A clarification with dual licensing

2014-08-11 Thread Ian Jackson
Dariusz Dwornikowski writes ("Re: A clarification with dual licensing"): > And what about a situation where: > - package A MIT links to SSL > - package B GPL links to package A > - package B does not link to SSL in confgure.ac or during complation > > Yet, ldd pack

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

2014-08-11 Thread Dariusz Dwornikowski
> > or the "and" word glues these two licenses together ? > > Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use > both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you > should use only the MIT license. And what about a situation where: - package A MIT links to

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

2014-08-10 Thread Riley Baird
On 11/08/14 12:14, Paul Wise wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > >> since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, > > I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free? > It's really a matter of semantics, but I would argue that since being able to be d

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

2014-08-10 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, I think you mean non-distributable rather than non-free? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subje

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

2014-08-10 Thread Riley Baird
On 11/08/14 07:26, Francesco Ariis wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote: >> [...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, >> you should use only the MIT license. > > Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when? > They are normally DFSG free, but

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

2014-08-10 Thread Francesco Ariis
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50:03AM +1000, Riley Baird wrote: > [...] but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, > you should use only the MIT license. Are GPL-3/GPL-3+ non DFSG free? Since when? signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: A clarification with dual licensing

2014-08-10 Thread Riley Baird
> The question is, in this case, can I "choose" a license to be MIT > or the "and" word glues these two licenses together ? Yes, you can choose the license to be MIT. Typically, you would use both, but since releasing it under GPL-3+ would make it non-free, you should use only the MIT license.