[License-discuss] Dual-Licensing (GPLv2 and Artistic License 2.0)
btilly at gmail.com
Wed Oct 30 08:36:08 UTC 2013
The idea of dual licensing is that the copyright owner has offered you
a choice of license terms. Pick the one you like better.
Just make sure to follow those terms and you're fine.
(And yes, the Artistic License does let you sell binaries without source.)
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Nico Diekhaus <nico.diekhaus at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can’t find any details about dual-licensing, that helps me. I have a
> question about a source code I found and want to use for my program.
> The souce code is licensed with the GPLv2 and the Artistic License 2.0. Can
> I use the code for my program (and sell the program) without posting my
> source code on the internet?
> If it is just licensed without GPL I would say yes. Because I found the
> following in the Artistic License:
> „(6) You may Distribute a Modified Version in Compiled form without the
> Source, provided that you comply with Section 4 with respect to the Source
> of the Modified Version.”
> “(4) You may Distribute your Modified Version as Source (either gratis or
> for a Distributor Fee, and with or without a Compiled form of the Modified
> Version) provided that you clearly document how it differs from the Standard
> Version, including, but not limited to, documenting any non-standard
> features, executables, or modules, and provided that you do at least ONE of
> the following:
> (a) make the Modified Version available to the Copyright Holder of the
> Standard Version, under the Original License, so that the Copyright Holder
> may include your modifications in the Standard Version.
> (b) ensure that installation of your Modified Version does not prevent the
> user installing or running the Standard Version. In addition, the Modified
> Version must bear a name that is different from the name of the Standard
> (c) allow anyone who receives a copy of the Modified Version to make the
> Source form of the Modified Version available to others under
> (i) the Original License or
> (ii) a license that permits the licensee to freely copy, modify and
> redistribute the Modified Version using the same licensing terms that apply
> to the copy that the licensee received, and requires that the Source form of
> the Modified Version, and of any works derived from it, be made freely
> available in that license fees are prohibited but Distributor Fees are
> Distribution of Compiled Forms of the Standard Version or Modified Versions
> without the Source”
> So did I understand this right? Can I use the code of that program if I ...
> ... 1. "clearly document how it differs from the Standard Version"
> ... 2. "(b) ensure that installation of your Modified Version does not
> prevent the user installing or running the Standard Version. In addition,
> the Modified Version must bear a name that is different from the name of the
> Standard Version."
> I hope I made my point clear and someone can help me.
> Thank you very much!
> Nico Diekhaus
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
More information about the License-discuss