When to evaluate dual licenses (was: license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?)

[Chuck Swiger]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Chuck Swiger (chuck at codefab.com):
>> In that case, the Obj-C extensions involved a bunch of code changes  
>> to
>> the GCC sources such as the precompiler and the addition of the Obj-C
>> runtime library, and I think it was clear that these changes could  
>> not
>> be separated out from GCC.  I believe that NeXT was fairly obliged by
>> the GPL to release their changes in that case. [1]
>
> This is a good history and appreciated -- except that NeXT, Inc. was  
> not
> actually obligated to release anything:  It could have merely ceased
> infringement.  It elected instead to release code in order to retain  
> the
> ability to keep shipping.

OK, that's a valid point; NeXT had other options, but chose to release  
the code in order to keep shipping their modified version of GCC,  
rather than switching to another Obj-C compiler like Stepstone's.

> (I'm no copyleft partisan, domain name notwithstanding.  I merely note
> that assertions about forced release are inaccurate, at least in US  
> law,
> as that is not a remedy available against copyright tort-feasors.
> IANAL.  TINLA.  YADA.)

:-)

-- 
-Chuck