Back to topic, I think the SF Conservancy's position is nonsense.
It is fully ok to have GPL software dual-licensed and make companies pay to use it under different terms. This is precisely what this particular developer does.
Of course he can only license his own code, so the company who violated the GPL manoeuvred into some kind of bad position by doing so.
It is fully ok to have GPL software dual-licensed and make companies pay to use it under different terms. This is precisely what this particular developer does.
Of course he can only license his own code, so the company who violated the GPL manoeuvred into some kind of bad position by doing so.
Comment