<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:s='http://snipsnap.org/rdf/snip-schema#'
    xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
    xml:base='http://snipsnap.org/rdf'>
    <s:Snip rdf:about='http://snipsnap.org/rdf#comment-start/2004-10-13/1-31'
         s:name='comment-start/2004-10-13/1-31'
         s:cUser='aos'
         s:oUser=''
         s:mUser='aos'>
        <s:content>Hm, &#xD;&#xA;If this was a forum I would suggest to move the discussion to a different thread :D\\&#xD;&#xA;[leo] and [funzel] are very right and as far as I followed the discussion here there is nothing wrong in &quot;dual licensing&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The team only has to make sure, that the people contributing to the GPL version (I think there is only __one__ version anyway) assign copyright to the team (this is the ~~american~~ term, in europe rights of use, modification, extension, adaption, distribution have to assigned ~~explicitely~~) otherwise the contributions fall under GPL alone and can not be redistributed under a different license.\\&#xD;&#xA;E.g. see this company: {link:http://www.sleepycat.com/}, thats a show case in the open source industry in ~~how to make business with the GPL~~.\\&#xD;&#xA;There was a interview withthe CEO of sleep cat on /. some time ago ... I&apos;m sure you can {link:www.google.com} for it.</s:content>
        <s:mTime>2004-10-30 23:25:43.741</s:mTime>
        <s:cTime>2004-10-30 23:25:43.226</s:cTime>
        <s:comments
             rdf:type='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag'/>
        <s:snipLinks>
            <rdf:Bag>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='#aos'/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='#winkler'/>
            </rdf:Bag>
        </s:snipLinks>
        <s:attachments
             rdf:type='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag'/>
    </s:Snip>
</rdf:RDF>