Mandrake and the commercial license

[Guillaume Ponce]

>I don't.

Nor I do.


> A contributer needs to give them permission to publish the code as
> non-free software.

I agree with this.

If they (Mandrake Software) put their license, I think they must be
the copyright holder of the software.  Or at least they must get such
a permission from a contributer who would keep being the copyright
holder of his contribution.  In fact, it is like this contributer dual
licensing his contribution.

Is dual licencing `viral'? ;)


I see this kind of dual licensing as:

  1. If you want it free, you can have it free.

  2. If you want to proprietarize your derivative work, you can do so.

Wouldn't they have the same effect with a single non-copyleft free
software licence, such as BSD?

In fact, there is a difference: with this free *and copyleft* /
proprietary dual licencing you have to pay to have the power to deny
other people de freedoms you received.  With a non-copyleft free
software licence, it's gratis to do so.

I don't like the idea of reducing freedom.  And I don't like the idea
of paying to have the power to do so...


Guillaume Ponce
http://www.guillaumeponce.org/