FAQ

Les Mikesell wrote:


On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
perl. And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
you.
I explained this to you in vast details. If you ignore this explanation, I
cannot help you.
No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
need for it. But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
clear to everyone else. It clearly has not hurt the popularity of
perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to
use that code only in GPL-compatible ways.

Cdrtools are fully legal as they strictly follow all claims from the related
licenses.


What problem do you have with fully legal code?


I explained that because cdrtools is legally distributable as is (see legal
reviews from Sun, Oracle and Suse), there is no need to dual license anything.


I also explained that a dual licensed source will cause problems if people send
e.g. a GPL only patch.


If you continue to claim not to have an answer from me, I need to assume that
you are not interested in a serious discussion.


Conclusion: dual licensing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages.


J?rg


--
  EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
        joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
  URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2017 Grokbase