On 23 Jan 2001 10:42:26 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > You can't restrict GPL'd software like that. It is either GPL or it
> > > isn't: adding restrictions violates FSF's copyright on it.
> > You certainly can :) The FSF doesn't automatically have copyright over
> > GPL software. A lot of people *give* copyright to the FSF, for either
> > legal or practical reasons.
>
> No, but they have copyright over the GPL, which prevents anything
> other than "Fair Use" of it in another licence:-
That's nothing to do with dual-licencing issues, though. Dual licensing
doesn't alter the terms of either license, it only specifies the terms
in which you may accept to be bound by the license.
> > Dual-licensing is very different from 'free but proprietry'. Perl is
> > dual-licensed, but I still class it has Free software because I have the
> > option of using it under the GPL, which is an option I exercise.
>
> I was pointing out that I thought dual licences other than the
> categories listed were classed as "free but restricted" by freshmeat,
> I think. Nothing more.
No, free but restricted essentially means freeware pretty much, which
the author might have 'very kindly' allowed you to do more with :(. Dual
licensed stuff, like Perl, just comes up as 'GPL & Artistic'. It's still
Free software - because you can get it as GPL - it's just /also/
non-Free / free / commercial / whatever else they licence it with.
BTW - I did have a look for examples of dual licensing. GPL & Artistic
seems to be *the* major 'dual license' example. I couldn't find a
*single* example of a dual scheme where one partner wasn't the GPL -
does anyone know of any examples??
Cheers,
Alex.
