"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 12/07/2013 04:50:44 PM:

> Jeff Thompson wrote:

> > I am saying, as between B and C, if they've agreed to exchange the
> code under the GPL, as between those two, that's the license.  

> I agree with that.

Great.  I'm happy we put that issue to bed.

>                     So also if Red Hat takes software from the Linux
> Foundation under the GPL and agrees with its customers to make that
> available under a commercial license, then as between them the
> commercial license is the deal.

Don't agree with you on that one, but as you point out, that's an issue between RH and the Linux contributors.  As I read the GPL, there are terms that say you have to pass on the GPL code under the GPL terms and no other license, so the analogy between that an the AL2.0 fails.

Counsel, IBM Software Group