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

[Matthew East]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



* Corey Burger:
> Ah yes, the great dual licensing debate. Given I was there talking
> with Mako when this was decided at Mataro, I will weigh in on this.
> Basically it boils down to Debian. Either license is acceptable for us
> (Ubuntu) but we wanted Debian to be able to use our stuff at some
> point as well. However, neither the GFDL nor the CC-by-sa 2.0 are
> currently acceptable. Thus we put them under both, so if one becomes
> acceptable, Debian can accept it under that license.

Ah thanks, this is helpful.

A couple of observations:

1. Debian has never (to my knowledge) used any of our material - is this
right?
2. Using alternative licenses, as far as I can see, means that the only
material *we* can copy is public domain material. If we copy some GFDL
material (such as something from Wikipedia) then we are in violation of
the GFDL because we haven't released it under the same terms, a
derivative of ours might take the material and release it under the
CC-BY-SA, which is incompatible with the GFDL.

So is this dual licensing business actually a good idea?

Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE0boRtSaF0w5rBv8RApGrAJ9EAIcn45NMp7cUtmVKr4xWUOaBpwCfUEB5
lrt+yfrr1z6GxmCeFIhS4lA=
=VjKO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----