GPL 3 vs Proprietary LiveCode

[Richard Gaskin]

Paul Looney wrote:

 > In another thread Richard Gaskin wrote:
 >
 > "And as a dual-licensed system, LiveCode lets us choose either GPL or
 > other licenses depending on our goals for the project at hand.”
 >
 > How can you legally have a “dual-licensed system” that uses GPL 3
 > code, when the GNU General Public License Version 3 states
 > specifically that it does not permit incorporating GPL programs into
 > proprietary programs?
 >
 > Is not “Commercial”, which is approximately 95% “Community”, also
 > subject to the terms of the GPL 3, and therefore open source?

The creator of an original work is recognized as its owner, and granted 
sole authority over how that work may be distributed.

Licenses may differ by licensee.  In proprietary software a common 
example of this is site licenses, where the terms often differ 
significantly from those in individual licenses.

The owner of a work may grant different terms to anyone. Some pay more, 
some pay less.  Some can copy to multiple machines, others limited to 
one machine.  And some may be granted a right to have access to the 
source code, and others may choose a different license that doesn't 
include that right.

The existence of one set of license terms with one customer does not 
negate the license terms with another customer.

This is equally true regardless whether the distribution of source code 
is among the terms of a license.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com