Differences between version 2 and revision by previous author of DualLicensed.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Revision, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 2 | Last edited on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 11:18:29 am | by JohnMcPherson | Revert |
| Older page: | version 1 | Last edited on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 10:14:51 pm | by AristotlePagaltzis | Revert |
@@ -1,11 +1,14 @@
A number of software products these days are DualLicensed.
Perhaps a pioneer in this regard was [Perl], which is distributed under the terms of the ArtisticLicense as well as the [GPL], but it is not the canonical example and not what people generally refer to as DualLicensed.
-The canonical example would be [MySQL] (though there are others such as DansGuardian)
. These products are written by commercial entities and provided under [GPL] for private use, but also sold for commercial use under a commercial license.
+The canonical example would be [MySQL]. These products are written by commercial entities and provided under [GPL] for private use, but also sold for commercial use under a commercial license.
+(DansGuardian used to employ such a method, but now is only licensed under the GPL.
+It is sold for commercial use from the author's website, but that doesn't prevent
+you from acquiring it from another source.)
-To a layman, the legal implications may be confusing. In such a constellation, once downloaded under the [GPL], you can (in fact, you must) redistribute
the product to anyone (including businesses) under the [GPL]. However, if you obtained your copy under a commercial license, you are bound to the terms of that license and may not freely redistribute that copy.
+To a layman, the legal implications may be confusing. In such a constellation, once downloaded under the [GPL], any redistribution of
the product to anyone (including businesses) must be
under the [GPL]. However, if you obtained your copy under a commercial license, you are bound to the terms of that license and may not freely redistribute that copy.
Of course, the company may (and, obviously in all likelihood, will) refuse to directly support users of a [GPL] licensed copy.
Thus, the company and all customers get the best of both worlds: everyone can use the product and create derivative works, but there is also a commercial entity behind it which will offer contracted support, so business owners and PHBs can sleep better at night.
