Timeline for GPLv3: "Provide source at no further charge" - is dual licencing a loophole?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2021 at 9:49 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | If you don't have it under GPL then the GPL is irrelevant | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 0:55 | answer | added | David Schwartz | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 0:50 | comment | added | David Schwartz | How is this a loophole though? They could just release it only under the commercial license and not GPL version at all. Why would they add a GPL version at all? | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 0:35 | answer | added | Ben | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jun 28, 2021 at 19:49 | vote | accept | Tasos Papastylianou | ||
| Jun 28, 2021 at 17:32 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jun 28, 2021 at 14:57 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | Some variant of this happened with the original Humble Indie Bundle, which was a limited-time pay-what-you-want sale for a bundle of proprietary games, but most of the authors also promised that if sales exceeded some threshold, they would all release their games' source under the GPL. (They ultimately met their target and did so.) | |
| Jun 28, 2021 at 9:46 | answer | added | amon | timeline score: 24 | |
| Jun 28, 2021 at 9:31 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 8, 2021 at 13:49 | |||||
| Jun 28, 2021 at 9:25 | history | asked | Tasos Papastylianou | CC BY-SA 4.0 |