From: Jim Weirich Date: 2003-02-17T01:11:53+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL question On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 11:12 PM, Jim Weirich wrote: > > If the original work is licensed under the Artistic and GPL, why can't > > the derivative work also be licensed in the same way? [...] On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 01:17, Mark Wilson wrote: > It's probably a difference that makes no difference. There are two > licenses in Daniel's question: the first is the license of the Perl > module and the second is the license of the derivate work he creates. > Because the Perl module can be used pursuant to the Artistic License or > the GPL, as a technical matter you choose one or the other at your > discretion. Note that the dual license is actually "or" and not "and". It seems that it comes down to the usage of the word "or" in the dual license. Hmmm. The mathmetician in me wants to ask if that is an "exclusive or" or an "inclusive or". I have no idea what the lawyers would say. It seems obvious to me that if the original author choose dual licensing, then he would have no problems with derived works choosing the same dual licensing terms. But then I recognize that what is obvious and what is legal are two entirely different realms. Thanks for the clarification. As a software writer, I try to stay familiar with legal issues of the different licenses. -- -- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net http://w3.one.net/~jweirich --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)