Talk:Dual-licensing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Edit Requests

The following suggestions have been made to this article.

  • An explication of GFDL, MIT, MySQL and Mono licenses


[edit] Merger

I think that Proprietary open source is a poorly written article, created by a user just to promote a political agenda against Mono development platform. The use of the term is identical to dual license, so maybe if we redirect that here said user will stop reverting the Mono article. Not that I have much hope, but you never know... scot 20:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term, and it appears without citation or context. Don't bring your spam to us. Keep it over there. --216.114.170.29 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The term has been used, by Bruce Perens, though it was an HP excecutive who coined it--see http://perens.com/Articles/Economic.html. And the point of the merger is to eliminate the spam over there, by addressing the concerns of dual GPL/commercial licensing here. And with luck, the anonymous editor who keeps reverting the Mono article will finally give up and admit that the Mono license isn't some evil conspiracy to enslave us all... scot 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Particular purpose only

This article talk about Dual licencing
So we expect to find all use of dual licencing such as:

  • Licence with compatibility provisions such as cecill
  • common dual licence such as artistic licence/gpl or gpl/BSD (very common for work derived from BSD licenced work in the linux kernel)

[edit] Tri vs. Dual

Some open source projects are Tri-licensed (Mozilla software), so dual and tri-licenses should be differentiated. --70.111.218.254 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for the differentiation. Triple licensing is pretty much a dual dual licensing (ie. GPL/LGPL + GPL/MPL). Besides, the LGPL itself could be considered a dual license because it allows relicensing under GPL, so Mozilla's license could be just MPL/LGPL. Also the GPL could be considered a multilicense because it allows relicensing under later versions (if the original contributor allowed it). So "GPL2 or later" is a multilicense equal to "GPL2/GPL3/orlater", and LGPL2.1 is "LGPL2.1/GPL2/LGPL3/GPL3/...". Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We could call the article multi license. --69.54.29.23 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] License VS Licence

This page is inconsistent per WP:SPELLING. While both License and Licence are allowed, I think that we should stick to the same spelling within an article. Nineko 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Done (and I did some other clean ups while I was at it). Gronky 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So, although, the article is called Dual-licensing, all instances of "license" were changed to "licence"—except, of course, the ones in bold that refer to the title. :) – Mipadi 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The verb is always spelled with an "s". ...X is dual-licensed... ...dual-licensing is Y... ...Z dual-license their software... Gronky 01:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software only?

Can't other works, such as text or images, be dual-licensed? --DStoykov 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. For example, you can license your photos under Creative Commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike license, and sell it under a commercial (typical copyright) license. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)