I just learnt that the developer of copyleft-licensed software is not bound by said licence, and so can also release it under any other (non-exclusive) licences.
So what would happen if they also released it under a permissive licence, like MIT...?
What are the restrictions (if any) of derivative software then?
@normplum Normally I think the user gets to pick one of the licences it has come out under, so if something is GPL3-MIT downstream can pick whichever it likes best. Not a lawyer though, nor extremely experienced, so take with a big pinch of GNU/Salt.
This often happens when projects want to be paid for getting a more permissive licence, free under AGPL3 but if you pay me, you can run and remix the code as long as you don't sell it on, or something like that. https://www.architecture-weekly.com/p/why-open-source-isnt-always-fair
The current Open Source model assumes symmetry between all users, but... When the OSI insists cloud providers deserve equal treatment to individual developers, it forces projects into defensive positions. Lets discuss the dual license movement, what do they mean? All of that based on the reasearch I've done for my OSS projects.
Norm
CouldBeMathijs