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

[Scott Elcomb]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM, James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 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.

OK - Just to be clear...  It's absolutely fine to "use" GPL'd software
commercially... as long as ALL of the freedoms provided by the GPL are
provided to the recipient.

-- 
  Scott Elcomb
  http://www.psema4.com/
--
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