webferret

[Christopher Chan]

Florian Diesch wrote:
> Christopher Chan <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> writes:
>
>   
>> Florian Diesch wrote:
>>     
>>> Chan Chung Hang Christopher <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> writes:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Florian Diesch wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Graham Todd <grahamtodd2 at googlemail.com> writes:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:25:23 -0400
>>>>>> Jay Daniels <tux at myt60.net> uttered these words:
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Your next favorite java app:  http://tinyurl.com/6a3by
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> The blurb says:
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Not surprisingly, BlogBridge is also Open Source.
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> ...but Blogbridge is **NOT** free software (as defined by gnu.org)
>>>>>> since you will have to sign up to a restrictive licensing agreement.
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> They offer you to use it under GPL as well. And I guess their own
>>>>> license is illegal as the program includes GPL software.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> If it does pull in GPL code, 
>>>>         
>>> I didn't check that, but I can't think of any other explanation for
>>> this kind of dual-license.
>>>       
>> If it is YOUR code, you can license it anyway you like. Eg: I can 
>> license it to you under GPL and to Tom under some other license where he 
>> is allowed to distribute changes without releasing the source code 
>> changes at all. What is your problem if I license it to you under GPL 
>> and to Tom under something else? It is NONE of your business what I do 
>> with MY code.
>>     
>
> If your code uses code that is licensed to you under GPL you are not
> allowed to release your code under any other license.
>   
Pal, please make things clear...one does not license one's own code. If 
you suspect they are infringing on somebody else's code, then you have 
to prove that they are using GPL code not of their own creation.


> As it doesn't make much sense to distribute software under GPL
> and a much more restrictive license that doesn't give any benefits to
> the user I suspect that they are using GPL'ed code and try to get away 
> with this dual-licensing.
>
>   


Have you heard of MySQL? That is dual-licensed. Have you heard of qt? 
That was dual-licensed and might still be even though qt 4.5 is now 
available under LGPL. Restrictive? No benefits? How about being able to 
use your code, modify it and only have to provide binaries when 
distributing (whether by selling sublicenses or what not) and no source 
code to you or others while under license to you?