Does this license combination make (legal) sense?
Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I ran across this[1], which is apparently a popular license disclaimer in the Rust community: > Licensed under either of Apache License, Version 2.0 or MIT license at your option. > Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in this crate by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be dual licensed as above, without any additional terms or conditions. ... this doesn't seem like it's legally valid to my non-lawyer eyes. For example, if someone was using the code under the MIT license, then presumably they wouldn't enjoy any of the APL's patent claim protections. And, if you were a downstream recipient of the code, how would you know what license you were receiving it under? Am I missing something here? [1]: https://crates.io/crates/syn -- Josh Berkus _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org