Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:28 UTC, submitted by irbis
Mono Project "Does GNOME co-founder Miguel de Icaza's backflip over the Novell-Microsoft deal a few days ago mean that he has finally been convinced that he is on a one-way path to nowhere? Has he realised that his own project, Mono, is actually putting GNOME on a development track that can leave it open to patent claims one day? And has he realised that creating Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft's Silverlight, (with which the company hopes to trump Adobe's Flash) is not going to advance the cause of free software one iota?"
Thread beginning with comment 304682
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: O_O
by KenJackson on Wed 12th Mar 2008 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: O_O"
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

I repeat myself, dual licensing is widely considered to be perfectly acceptable. There is no freedom it is in conflict with.

There seems to be a disconnect here. There is certainly a lot of dual licensing in use, and those that are doing or benefiting from it no doubt consider it to be perfectly acceptable.

But the second license probably always softens or restricts the four freedoms. If it didn't, there would be little point to doing it. So even though, as you point out, dual licensing is widely used, it remains controversial.

But a larger point is that usually when a dual license is used, there are two specific licenses itemized. But the quote in the article implies Novell is free to use whatever license they want. If that's so, they could re-license contributions under the "we have all rights and you have none" license.

That goes beyond the general discussion about dual licensing.

Reply Parent Score: 2