3 ms·

It obviously does. You wish to use a permissive license; the GPL requires that you provide distributes your code under the GPL; dual-licensing meets both of the

It obviously does. You wish to use a permissive license; the GPL requires that you provide distributes your code under the GPL; dual-licensing meets both of these requirements. Care to explain the thinking behind you reaching the opposite conclusion?

kazinator 4y ago
If I offer you a program under the BSD license, and then offer you exactly the same program under the GPL licnese, I have effectively offered you the program under the BSD license. Everything you could want to do with the program is granted by the BSD license maximally; the GPL doesn't grant you anything new. And the BSD offer nullifies all restrictions imposed by the GPL. There is no benefit in such a dual licensing idea, and so if there is any nonzero harm, there is a net harm. What are you going to do if a contributor sends you a significant patch that you would like? Only, oops, their contributions are under the GPL because they are working with your GPL offering? Suppose that person believes in the GPL and won't switch to the BSD. If you accept that, you will have to fork the program into two. If you make it clear that all contributions must be dual-licensed, then there isn't really any meaning. Those who favor the GPL aren't going to contribute to a project that requires them to BSD-license their contribution alongside the GPL, because it negates the GPL. If you don't agree with the redistribution terms of the GPL, then just don't use it. BSD, MIT or whatever. It's clear to all potential contributors that they must use the same license in order to get their changes merged, and that's it; no ambiguity, no confusions leading to forking.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]