[License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations

[Kevin Fleming]

Right, this is potentially a 'dual-license' scenario, where the copyright
holders distribute the code under two (or more) distinct licenses, in
separate distributions. If you receive the code under a non-open-source
license, the presence of the same (or similar) code in another location
under an open source license isn't necessarily relevant; you got the code
with an attached license, so its terms apply to you. If you obtain the code
via other means, with an attached open source license, then that license's
terms apply to you.

This definitely sounds like an unnecessarily complicated situation, but in
the end, you can only use the code under the license terms that were
attached when you received it. If no license was attached, then you
probably don't have any rights to use it at all.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Michael R. Bernstein <
michael at fandomhome.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Chris Ochs <chris at ochsnet.com> wrote:
>
>> I know they are open source because the authors have a website or github
>> repo with the open source license.   They just aren't including that
>> license in the copy that they release through this company.
>
>
> If they are the copyright holders to the code on Github, they may also
> release it without a license through the company.
>
> IANAL, TINLA, etc.
>
> - Michael Bernstein
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150831/969501a9/attachment.html>