A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.
5

If I decide to sell you a car, I can offer to do so for (say) a thousand pounds, or if I choose I might say to you "You can have my car for either a thousand pounds or your motorcycle in exchange". If you decide you want my car it's up to you to decide which condition to honour: the money or the motorcycle. That is the essence of dual licensing. I offer ...


5

This is covered (in the affirmative) in a GPL FAQ item: You have a GPLed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program? Not exactly. It means you must release your program under a license compatible with the GPL (more precisely, compatible with one ...


4

Firstly, dual-licensing is fine and uncontentious: as long as you own all the copyrights in this codebase, you can offer it to different recipients under different licences without issue. Note this will require not accepting community contributions, or only doing so when a suitable Contributor Licensing Agreement, or a Copyright Transfer Agreement, is in ...


3

Yes, if you like, you may ignore the offer to receive the software under the GPL and instead receive it only under the LGPL. It is redundant, in terms of permissions granted, to offer software under the GPL and under a GPL-compatible license simultaneously, since any project that could use the code under the GPL could also use it under the GPL-compatible ...


3

IANAL. Short answer: Yes, you need to use GPL, too. Longer answer: There is a reason we have the GPL (which wants to enforce that any derivatives of this software use the same license) and the LGPL which allows the software be used as library by other projects not under the GPL. In python a module is the equivalent of a library. So you will need to use the ...


2

First of all, let me personally thank you for considering open-sourcing your game. I think it is a very good decision, both for yourself and the community! There're many games which were partially open-sourced, leaving some of the content not available for free. Consider, for example, DOOM. Source code is publicly available (https://github.com/id-Software/...


2

Yes, you have a choice. This dual license is actually a bit silly because the LGPL alone already gives you that choice. The LGPLv3 is literally just the normal GPLv3 plus an additional set of exceptions. You can always drop the extra permissions the LGPLv3 gives you, and stick to the normal GPLv3. If your own software shall use the GPLv3, then this choice ...


2

If you are depending on GPL code from others, you are essentially out of luck. Unless you can get a different license for the code, you can't publish your project to the app store. If you are the sole copyright holder, then you can simply use multiple licenses for your code. The GPL in the public repository and another license for the version published in ...


2

Note that the thesis may not be legally yours, e.g. here in Chile by law anything somebody creates as part of the study work is the property of the school. Or you might be required to assign copyright to the school to graduate.


1

It would certainly "work", you can place any license you want (even several) on your work. But the end result is that of the most liberal of all of them (why should I select, e.g. GPLv3 when you offer me public domain?). Select your license(s) with care. Look at David Wheeler's "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.", check out Choose an ...


1

Each license grants the licensee certain rights. Licensing under GPL and OSL means you get the rights both grant. In essence, you (as licensee) can pick which license you get the package under.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible