FAQ

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
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?

The problem is that it can't be used as a component of a larger work
if any other components are GPL-covered. As you know very well.

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.

Unless you would like it to be used more widely, and available as
component in best-of-breed works.

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

So, not being able to accept patches from people who aren't sending
patches now - and probably aren't even aware of your work - would
somehow be a problem. That's ummm, imaginative...

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.

I haven't seen any serious discussion yet. Maybe we could discuss
how badly perl has suffered from not being able to accept those GPL'd
patches that you fear so much.

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

Wrong conclusion. Remind we why you asked about your code not being used.


--
    Les Mikesell
      lesmikesell at gmail.com

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase