inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

[Ben Finney]

"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" <umlaeute at debian.org> writes:

> just to clarify.
> the proposal was to dual-license under
> (1) a license termed "GPL + exceptions", which refers to the GPL but
> adds a non-commercial clause
> (2) a license named "Linux Sampler License" which prohibits commercial
> use but *apart from that* grants the same rights as the GPL.

That much was already clear. It's still not a coherent license, under
either of those conditions, and hence grants no valid license to the
copyright holder.

> if by the "combination" you mean the "GPL-exceptions" then yes, this
> is true, but should have little practical impact.

If the effect of the license combination is acknowledged, but has
“little practical impact”, why does this matter so much? On the
contrary, I think it matters to the extent that getting a valid license
matters at all.

> esp. i think that if the licensor offers their work simulatenously
> under multiple licenses, then those licenses do not affect each other.

Regardless, if any of those effective sets of license terms do not form
a coherent set of permissions, then that option isn't valid for the
recipient. If *all* of the options do that, under different names, then
the recipient still has been presented no useful options.

-- 
 \          “Better not take a dog on the space shuttle, because if he |
  `\   sticks his head out when you're coming home his face might burn |
_o__)                                                up.” —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney