> Doesn't the second license conflict with the first, and
> invalidate one or the other licenses, or both?
No.
> If it is valid to do both, then both become pointless. Someone
> takes the "foo" sources, and modifies them. When sued, they say
> "Oh, I was using the GPL'd sources". Someone else takes the
> sources, and modifies them, not releasing the modifications, and
> sells commercially. When sued by the GPL folk, they say "Oh, I
> was using the commercial copyright, and I've got permission from
> the author."
Exactly. If you didn't want that, why'd you put it under two licenses?
Some people don't mind if their drivers are used in both BSD and Linux,
so they release it under two licenses. But if I choose to modify it, I
may also opt to release the derived work as GPL (or BSD or whatever)
only, not letting the other "branch" benefit from *my* work (Does this
actually happen?) - all works derived from my modified version would
have to stay GPL.
The original author, in a sense, only delayed the decision to me.
~kzm
-- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/