[Fwd: [ubuntu]dual license strategy: GFDL&CC-BY-SA]

[Robin Sonefors]

The copyright holder has the right to release anything he/she does under
any licenses to anyone. That includes giving user A a BSD-license for
something, and giving user B the work only if B chooses to accept the MS
EULA.

The FSF is saying - like you're saying - that you cannot take a GFDL:ed
work and convert it to CC-BY-SA, or vice versa.

To prove my point: look at MySQL, Trolltech etc. The whole point of the
GPL is to disallow taking GPL:ed works and making them non-free. And
still MySQL, Trolltech etc are selling non-free versions of their
software.

(sorry for sending this to you twice, matt)

On ons, 2006-08-02 at 16:15 +0100, Matthew East wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> This is an interesting question so I'm forwarding it to the
> documentation team mailing list and Mako, who likes these things.
> 
> My initial instinct is that the website that you found is saying that if
> a work is licensed under the cc-by-sa license, a subsequent derivative
> work cannot be licensed under the gfdl. However the dual licensing
> strategy may have been originally intended to avoid exactly that
> concern, I wasn't around when that decision was taken.
> 
> I'm not really familiar with the concept of "dual licensing", and I find
> it slightly hard to understand that on our documents it is said that
> derivative works can use one *or* the other license.
> 
> It may be an appropriate time to have a second think about our licensing
> policy.
> 
> Matt
> 
> - -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [ubuntu]dual license strategy: GFDL&CC-BY-SA
> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 23:06:20 +0800
> From: weakish jiang <weakish at gmail.com>
> To: mdke at ubuntu.com
> References: <700384770608020749v2b19baecjdbadaac224a8d46e at mail.gmail.com>
> 
> "The Ubuntu Core Documentation Project uses a dual license strategy
> for the documentation source-code. The documentation source-code
> licenses are the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and the
> Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.0 License (CC-BY-SA). All works produced
> as works for hire for Canonical will be released under both
> licenses."[0]
> 
> And I found this on gnu.org:
> Please don't use Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 license
> for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU
> GPL and with the GNU FDL.[1]
> 
> My question is whether the GFDL&CC-BY-SA dual license strategy holds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - --------
> [0]https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License
> [1]http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFE0MEUtSaF0w5rBv8RAvlvAJ4/ANhYXF401BsLbPvLuDJU3Ku9awCeJ67K
> TAv1xEie2NwWERnReJWD9Ag=
> =BsnM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>