www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: dual licensing
Date Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:51:52 GMT
On 19/09/2009, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:54 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 19/09/2009, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>  >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
>  >>  >
>  >>  > On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Yes. [quite happy to be the thickwit :) ].
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Do we:
>  >>  >
>  >>  > a) Include the full licensing information,
>  >>  > b) Include the full licensing information and state which license we
>  >>  > are choosing,
>  >>  > c) Just include the license we have chosen?
>  >>  >
>  >>  > With source only libraries having the mild confusion that every file
>  >>  > will do a) in addition to whatever we choose to do in
>  >>  > LICENSE/NOTICE/README.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > I would think option c. If dual licensing means having to list both it
would
>  >>  > defeat the intent of only having to complying with the one we choose.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> So add this to resolved.html?
>  >>
>  >>  Question: How should works for which multiple mutually exclusive
>  >>  licenses are available be handled?
>  >>
>  >>  Ans: When including that work's licensing, include the license that
>  >>  you are choosing to use while than all of the options. Prefer Category
>  >
>  > while?
>
>
> Brain fart.  "rather than".
>
>
>  > I think the choice should be made explicit, so how about:
>  >
>  > Ans: When including that work's licensing, state which license is being
>  > used and include only the license that you have chosen. Prefer Category
>  >
>  >>  A to Category B to Category X. You don't need to modify the work
>  >>  itself if, for example, it mentions the various licensing options in
>  >>  the source headers.
>
>
> How does that differ in practice?
>

Because users have to choose which license to use.
It seems to me that the choice should be explicit, to show that it is
deliberate, rather than implicit, which could be due to accidental
omission.

>  Hen
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message