Hi,
I have some doubts about licensing which i didn't find them solved reading the gnu.org's site and i thought of asking them here because maybe replies can be added there later... (maybe i haven't find the proper urls and maybe i'm asking dumb/repetitive questions...ignore and sorry if so)
Multilicensing: 1-Could i license something under 2 diferent copyleft compatible licenses?
1.1-Could i license something under 2 copyleft uncompatible licenses?
1.1.1-If so, Could i also add a third one to the same document?
1.1.2-Could i also license it with a fourth free, non-copyleft, gpl compatible one?
Re-licensing: Project 'a' was GPL when it was 1.1, now is 2.2 and has changed into LGPL, ok?
Project 'b' was GFDL and now hasn't got any license displayed, ok?
Project 'c' was GFDL and they changed the license banner into another copyleft uncompatible one, ok?
Thanks in advance,
On Monday 16 April 2007 17:56, lolo wrote:
Hi,
I have some doubts about licensing which i didn't find them solved reading the gnu.org's site and i thought of asking them here because maybe replies can be added there later... (maybe i haven't find the proper urls and maybe i'm asking dumb/repetitive questions...ignore and sorry if so)
Multilicensing: 1-Could i license something under 2 diferent copyleft compatible licenses?
1.1-Could i license something under 2 copyleft uncompatible licenses?
1.1.1-If so, Could i also add a third one to the same document?
1.1.2-Could i also license it with a fourth free, non-copyleft, gpl compatible one?
I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm mistaken, I'm sure someone will correct me :)
You, as the author, can use as many licenses for your own work as you want. Just make sure you have the rights to do so, for example the approval of other co-authors. In some countries additional aspects have to be considered by employees.
I just don't think that it makes much sense to use multiple licenses for the same work (e.g. GPL + BSD + Proprietary-World-Domination-License for the source-code). Some companies use dual-license strategy (GPL + proprietary/closed-source license) so they can match different users' requirements, along some other aspects. I have some problems to imagine the benefit of a BSD + proprietary/closed-source license since BSD license would not prevent a licensee from using it for the purpose for which you may want to use the other license.
Re-licensing: Project 'a' was GPL when it was 1.1, now is 2.2 and has changed into LGPL, ok?
Project 'b' was GFDL and now hasn't got any license displayed, ok?
Project 'c' was GFDL and they changed the license banner into another copyleft uncompatible one, ok?
As far as you are talking about your own work, re-licensing is the same as with multiple licenses. You can change the license for any release you make. But be aware that you can't re-license any work that already has been licensed to a licensee. If 1.1 is released under GPL any licensee can modify, re-distribute, etc. this 1.1 again under GPL, whatever license you use for the 1.2 or 2.2.
The same applies for project 'c'. You take the last version licensed under GFDL, modify it and release it yourself under GFDL.
BTW: GFDL is for documentation. :)
Best regards, Anastasios
On 16-Apr-2007, lolo wrote:
Multilicensing: 1-Could i license something under 2 diferent copyleft compatible licenses? 1.1-Could i license something under 2 copyleft uncompatible licenses? 1.1.1-If so, Could i also add a third one to the same document? 1.1.2-Could i also license it with a fourth free, non-copyleft, gpl compatible one?
The copyright holder has certain freedoms reserved under copyright law, and has the ability to allow others to exercise these freedoms on her own terms. These freedoms *are* the license (look up the meanings of the word "license" and you'll see it is somewhat similar), and the terms are those stipulated when the recipient gets the work.
Thus, if you have sole copyright in a work, you can grant any particular people you choose any of your rights, on any terms you want, as many different times as you like.
If you grant a license to one person, you can grant a completely different license to another person. You can even grant two different licenses to the *same* person, and then that person has been given two different sets of things they can do, under two different sets of terms -- i.e. more freedom.
When that person decides they want to perform some act covered by copyright, they are dealing with a single work by a single copyright holder, and they only need one permission to do so -- they can *choose* which of the licenses they will exercise.
The situation is different if you're *combining* works under different licenses, because then you're not the sole copyright holder. You, *and* the people whom you received pieces of the work from, are all join copyright holders, and the license under which you received each piece of the work must be followed.
When you distribute a work that *you* received as a combination of different works under different licenses, they must all be satisfied as far as distribution is concerned. If you are allowed (by all of the licenses you received to the work) to re-license the work, you can do so, and the recipient gets it under that license. If, on the other hand, you may redistribute under one particular license, then that's your only option for performing the act of redistribution.
Re-licensing: Project 'a' was GPL when it was 1.1, now is 2.2 and has changed into LGPL, ok? Project 'b' was GFDL and now hasn't got any license displayed, ok? Project 'c' was GFDL and they changed the license banner into another copyleft uncompatible one, ok?
You don't state whether these are cases of the work being distributed by the copyright holder, or re-distributed verbatim by a recipient, or re-distributed as a modified work by a recipient.