[MPlayer-G2-dev] dual licensing try 2

[Gabucino]

D Richard Felker III wrote:
> BTW, here's another argument against dual-licensing. Suppose you add a
> new feature to MPlayer, and this new feature is in the GPL-only part.
> Now your greedy licensee comes and says "hey, you didn't write that!
> it's part of our closed-source mplayer and someone ported it back to
> yours without our permission!" This is very hard to argue against, and
> the party with more money wins. Of course the greedy licensee can't
> make this argument when the only license is GPL, since they're
> required to license any derivative work they make under the GPL.
This is not a good example, because a greedy licensee either:
 - steals it silently
 - can already attack even GPL code, like SCO does
 - doesn't argue, because they are partly dependant on our code improvements
 - is already filthly rich while we are dirt poor, so they gain nothing even
   if they won.

Remember, the GPL licensed version of the code is already "out there", and they
can't kill everyone using it.

Can you come up with an example where a duallicensed opensource code had such
problems?

BTW we can state the second license is valid only while a licensee doesn't
raise a lawsuit against us. :) Or sth.

-- 
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-g2-dev/attachments/20040224/c2cc4a9b/attachment.pgp>