Am 20. Jan, 2007 schwätzte Joshua Zeidner so: > On 1/20/07, der.hans wrote: >> Actually, there's plenty or precedence to dual-licensing between a Free >> Software license and a proprietary license. See OpenOffice.org ( >> proprietary version is StarOffice ) and MySQL. > > > > Hi Hans, > > I think there needs to be some clarification here; Dual licensing refers > not to a software system that has two sets of code with different licenses, > I use it to mean what Darrin describes in a later message. 'Dual licensing' > is the practice of imposing different and possibly contradictory licensing > agreements on a code base for different situations. It is becoming > increasing common in the OSS world. I was referring to dual-licensing of the same code-base. MySQL is the same code base with the GPL or with the proprietary license. OpenOffice.org and StarOffice are both reportedly mostly the same code-base. In fact, that code-base is a case of where it was under a proprietary license and the GPL was added to it, just as Sun is now also doing with Java. Perl is released under contradictory Open Source licenses. ### This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of either: a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or b) the "Artistic License" which comes with Perl. ### http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PerlLicense I wish all software were released under the GPL. That would simplify things for me and corporations wanting to use the software. Dual-licensing with the GPL being one of the licenses is a compromise and I think it's even one rms supports. I'm certain it's limited support at best, though :). ciao, der.hans -- # https://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.CiscoLearning.org/ # Join the League of Professional System Administrators https://LOPSA.org/ # Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to # see it tried on him personally. -- Abraham Lincoln