3 ms·
Dual licenses are not uncommon.
by driverdan 7y ago
Dual licenses are not uncommon.
- johncolanduoni 7y agoDual open source licenses where one applies to the compiled version and one applies to the source are not terribly common.
- notatoad 7y agoWhat does it even mean to have an open-source license on a binary? Aren't those two things kind of contradictory?
- mattl 7y agoLicense says you can "copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software" So you can do all those things, but I imagine that modifying is going to be harder than it would be with the source code.
- notatoad 7y agothat makes sense, thanks.
- mikekchar 7y agoYeah, this struck me as odd too until I realised that the MIT license says nothing about source code. It just talks about redistribution. So what they are saying is that the binary is redistributble for any purpose, but if you want to distribute changed versions of the source code you have to do it under AGPL. That's weird, but potentially OK. The only thing it does is allow you to redistribute the binary without having to supply the source. The reason I say "potentially OK", though is I wonder if a binary can be assigned a copyright as distinct from the source. The binary is only a machine translation of the source after all. Not a lawyer, so I'm not certain, but it seems a bit odd. I can't imagine a situation where anyone would challenge you, though --- they are giving you extra rights, not removing them.
- teraflop 7y agoAdvertising as "open source under license X" when, if you read the fine print, license X does not actually apply to the source code is pretty uncommon.