Mandrake and the commercial license

Tue Dec 17 17:45:01 UTC 2002

On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 18:10, Guillaume Ponce wrote:
> 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...

It's wrong to say that they are reducing freedom.

If you make a change you are not obliged to dual license it.

MandrakeSoft will simply not be entitled to use your modification in
their non-GPL license.

You may not like dual-licensing but let not say false things, please.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20021217/690a5cbc/attachment.sig>