Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Dimdows Know What Time It Is?
Date: 12 Oct 2024 16:51:44 GMT
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <lmvnovFb406U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <hwmKO.36384$afc4.11514@fx42.iad> <vddgqf$24oap$1@dont-email.me>
	<bfyKO.37639$afc4.24519@fx42.iad> <vdg0pn$2k2ps$1@dont-email.me>
	<bmSKO.243830$v8v2.80772@fx18.iad>
	<pan$c95bb$cbe518b0$39a1d215$2736670b@linux.rocks>
	<vdhmn3$2sase$2@dont-email.me> <t41LO.34727$rIH3.25125@fx40.iad>
	<vdje0h$37qau$3@dont-email.me> <gfbLO.276631$FzW1.145242@fx14.iad>
	<vdjgsm$37qau$9@dont-email.me> <xLbLO.69482$2nv5.49161@fx39.iad>
	<vdm399$3nim2$1@dont-email.me> <5txLO.77672$S9Vb.14643@fx45.iad>
	<j96ufjtp5rtnbhutj0aaetgph9t4k07ei3@4ax.com>
	<lm9ae2Frnk8U2@mid.individual.net> <vdo3u4$4q92$6@dont-email.me>
	<67005ae4$0$3653$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <vecb9g$3r6ms$11@dont-email.me>
	<670a4935$0$19159$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net mjJoZTtZ1X98IWAC9oeGVQ/vpuFiyurj8fx5kIUuJIH3o2crUg
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T1O0/T60VnujAlgxFfcdn2vRP3M= sha256:rL4y5RuCurq80d+1Gk+23EXc5vmFXnUghDKRlOwsgVk=
User-Agent: Pan/0.149 (Bellevue; 4c157ba)
Bytes: 4125

On 12 Oct 2024 10:02:29 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Le 11-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>> On 04 Oct 2024 21:15:16 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>> Le 04-10-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure about the legalities of dual-licensing. If you look at
>>>> licences like the GPL, they have wording that says “if you don’t
>>>> accept this licence, then you don’t have permission to use the
>>>> software”. That kind of precludes getting that permission via an
>>>> alternative licence ...
>>> 
>>> There is no reason to put a line of code under two licences, I don't
>>> believe that exists.
>>
>> It does. Perl being one example.
> 
> Can you show me the line of perl being under two licences? I'd like to
> understand the point.

I have posted it before:

"Perl5 is Copyright (C) 1993-2005, by Larry Wall and others.

It is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the 
terms of either:

a) the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software 
Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version, or

b) the "Artistic License".



For those of you that choose to use the GNU General Public License, my 
interpretation of the GNU General Public License is that no Perl script 
falls under the terms of the GPL unless you explicitly put said script 
under the terms of the GPL yourself.

Furthermore, any object code linked with perl does not automatically fall 
under the terms of the GPL, provided such object code only adds 
definitions of subroutines and variables, and does not otherwise impair 
the resulting interpreter from executing any standard Perl script. I 
consider linking in C subroutines in this manner to be the moral 
equivalent of defining subroutines in the Perl language itself. You may 
sell such an object file as proprietary provided that you provide or offer 
to provide the Perl source, as specified by the GNU General Public 
License. (This is merely an alternate way of specifying input to the 
program.) You may also sell a binary produced by the dumping of a running 
Perl script that belongs to you, provided that you provide or offer to 
provide the Perl source as specified by the GPL. (The fact that a Perl 
interpreter and your code are in the same binary file is, in this case, a 
form of mere aggregation.)

This is my interpretation of the GPL. If you still have concerns or 
difficulties understanding my intent, feel free to contact me. Of course, 
the Artistic License spells all this out for your protection, so you may 
prefer to use that."

https://dev.perl.org/licenses/