Talk:Multi-licensing

message: I think that Proprietary open source is a poorly written article, created by a user just to promote a political agenda against Mono development platform.  The use of the term is identical to dual license, so maybe if we redirect that here said user will stop reverting the Mono article.  Not that I have much hope, but you never know...  scot 20:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term has been used, by Bruce Perens, though it was an HP excecutive who coined it--see http://perens.com/Articles/Economic.html.  And the point of the merger is to eliminate the spam over there, by addressing the concerns of dual GPL/commercial licensing here.  And with luck, the anonymous editor who keeps reverting the Mono article will finally give up and admit that the Mono license isn't some evil conspiracy to enslave us all...  scot 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Some open source projects are Tri-licensed (Mozilla software), so dual and tri-licenses should be differentiated. --70.111.218.254 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any need for the differentiation. Triple licensing is pretty much a dual dual licensing (ie. GPL/LGPL + GPL/MPL). Besides, the LGPL itself could be considered a dual license because it allows relicensing under GPL, so Mozilla's license could be just MPL/LGPL. Also the GPL could be considered a multilicense because it allows relicensing under later versions (if the original contributor allowed it). So "GPL2 or later" is a multilicense equal to "GPL2/GPL3/orlater", and LGPL2.1 is "LGPL2.1/GPL2/LGPL3/GPL3/...". Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tri vs. Dual 

message: This page is inconsistent per WP:SPELLING.
While both License and Licence are allowed, I think that we should stick to the same spelling within an article. Nineko 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (and I did some other clean ups while I was at it). Gronky 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, although, the article is called Dual-licensing, all instances of "license" were changed to "licence"—except, of course, the ones in bold that refer to the title. :) – Mipadi 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The verb is always spelled with an "s".  ...X is dual-licensed... ...dual-licensing is Y... ...Z dual-license their software... Gronky 01:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  License VS Licence 

message: Can't other works, such as text or images, be dual-licensed? --DStoykov 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. For example, you can license your photos under Creative Commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike license, and sell it under a commercial (typical copyright) license. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software only? 

message: A recent paragraph addition was entered (Dec 26th) in the Business Models section.  I found the text lacking any citations, even as it made many claims that could have been verified.  In particular, the there was a statement made that the GPL could not be used to add community work to a commercial license.  This statement can be identified as false, by looking into the mySQL project, which is one of the most well-known dual license projects.  mySQL does use both GPL and commercial licenses, for the purpose of using community generated code in their commercial offerings.  I have removed that paragraph of text.  --71.168.124.11 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removed 

message: Let's say I use the sourcecode of a multiply-licensed software. Consider Android (that article says it's dual-licensed under Apache and GPL).
The lede of this article says, "When software is multi-licensed, recipients can choose which terms they want to use or distribute the software under." Now: Let's say I am a recipient, and I want to redistribute the software myself, with or without modifications of my own. It really doesn't seem that I'm free to choose Apache license alone, when I redistribute my copy of Android, because Android contains another project's GPL code (Linux kernel and more).
So what's the real story here? Is the Android article wrong? Is it not a single dual-licensed distribution, but actually a collection of several distributions, of which some have an Apache license and some have the GPL license?
Is the article accurate and complete, or, does "multiple-licensing" actually have a different meaning, or more meanings, besides "When software is multi-licensed, recipients can choose which terms they want to use or distribute the software under"? --76.102.243.117 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that what I'm asking for is specific examples, preferably with well-known multi-licensed software like, let's just say, Mozilla, which is triple-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL. Which is weird all by itself, because FSF says MPL and GPL are not compatible at all. Thanks for any help, here's to improving the article. --76.102.243.117 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I really don't understand this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Multi-licensing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719185014/http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/valimaki.pdf to http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/valimaki.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)