Re: Announce: DinX windowing system 0.2.0

Mike A. Harris (mharris@meteng.on.ca)
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:22:42 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Alan Cox wrote:

>> So, in reality, yes, you can licence under MPL and GPL, however
>> in order to use the code with the kernel, almost anyone out there
>> that touches it will license under GPL their changes.
>
>Actually looking at most projects I think that is dubious.
>
>Perl is dual licensed, the PCMCIA code is dual licensed. The original Linux
>firewall code was dual licensed. In almost all cases people simply wanted to
>provide fixes to the original author on the terms the original author wanted
>
>I really don't see a problem

I mostly agree too. The problem with multiple licenses however
arises when there IS a problem, and one has ASS-U-MEd that
submitted code is also dual licensed, but in fact an author did
not intend that. It has the (as small or large as it may be)
potential for compounding legal garbage.

Keeping things simple is the easiest route. Dual licensing
without a real good reason is just confusing. But that doesn't
necessarily have anything to do with DinX at all.

Other than that, I mostly agree. 

--
Mike A. Harris                                     Linux advocate     
Computer Consultant                                  GNU advocate  
Capslock Consulting                          Open Source advocate


Join the FreeMWare project - the goal to produce a FREE program in
which you can run Windows 95/98/NT, and other operating systems.


                    http://www.freemware.org




-
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/