On 8/7/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> 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