* Ben Finney:
> As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause
> (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore
> the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from
> the terms when they redistribute the work.
It's somewhat dou
On 10/09/2015 03:40 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > - they could dual-license the work under "GPL+exceptions" (to spare
>> > their happy audience) and under a "Linux Sampler License" (which would
>> > be the same but under a different name)
just to clarify.
the proposal was to dual-license under
(1) a
Ben Finney writes:
> That much was already clear. It's still not a coherent license, under
> either of those conditions, and hence grants no valid license to the
> copyright holder.
I wrote that incorrectly: it should end with “… no valid license from the
copyright holder”.
--
\ “The his
3 matches
Mail list logo
