On Wed, 23 Oct 2013, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Charlie Brady > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Technically true, but in practice it means that non-owners have the > >> same rights as owners except in rare circumstances. So it makes > >> ownership meaningless. > > > > Thats just pure BS, Les. Owners maintain full rights. The GPL only grants > > limited rights to licensees. > > What is the owner of one component of a GPL'd work (where there are > other components and owners involved) permitted to do that a non-owner > could not?
I don't know what you mean by "where there are other components and owners involved". You are asking about the owner of a GPL work. i.e. one owner, one work. The owner of a GPL'd work can do things which are not privileges granted by the GPL - e.g. can modify and then distribute without providing source code, can make and distribute a "derived work" which links with code which has a non-GPL compatible license (e.g. proprietary code), etc, etc. Ask a lawyer if you want more detail. > Without replacing all of the other GPL'd components, > anyway... The point of the GPL is to give everyone the same rights > and restrictions. All non-owners who obey the GPL, yes (infringers lose GPL-conferred rights). But it doesn't take any rights away from the owner. Anyway, this is mostly off-topic. The GPL has nothing to do with who owns SME server code. Back to on-topic - John needs to add some information about the stewardship of RuffDogs. _______________________________________________ Discussion about project organisation and overall direction To unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected] Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
