LGPL Version Exclusivity (Was: Releasing software under both LGPL 2.1 & 3 - A good idea?)

[James Knott]

Scott Elcomb wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:40 PM, James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>   
>> You can licence under multiple licences.  Here's an example of one instance:
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081104-diebold-faces-gpl-infringement-lawsuit-over-voting-machines.html
>>     
>
> I fully agree with (as I'm certain any number of other companies would
> agree with) multi-licensing.
>
> This specific case looks like it's deals particularly with the GPL, in
> which (I would figure) it's completely irresponsible - not to mention
> unethical - to use the software commercially without providing the
> source.
>   

Commercial use is permitted, provided a commercial license is
purchased.  Diebold chose to use the GPL version, instead of buying the
appropriate license.


-- 
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists