From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-07 14:14:24
On 8/7/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I guess the variety of replies of this thread speaks for itself about
> the advisability to add some dual-licensing item to the FAQ :-)
> OTOH, that could be just a question that *I* get frequently asked.
> FWIW, I would certainly dual-license some contributions such as TR1
> implementations, for instance, so that the guys of libstdc++, to cite
> an example, would not have to re-implement them from scratch.
As the Boost licence is compatible with the GPL (according to the FSF),
wouldn't the guys of the libstdc++ be able to just include the TR1 stuff?
The real problem is that to include code in an FSF project you need to
assign copyright to the FSF, and i guess this is different from dual
licensing, i.e. the FSF then would own the copyright. I do not know if they
would be the sole owner of the original author would retain (shared)
ownership. IANAL of course.
PS: to address some of the issues raised in the thread, I'm
> specifically referring to something like "this is licensed under (a)
> or (b), *at your option*".
-- Giovanni P. Deretta
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk