On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Charlie Brady
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
One owner, one work is a different situation - one that isn't strictly
bound to GPL terms. I mean the more typical situation where one
person owns a work using libraries or other components covered by the
GPL with different owners - or where contributions have ever been
accepted without formally transferring copyright ownership. As long
as any component of the work is covered by the GPL, all components
must be or it can't be distributed at all.
> Anyway, this is mostly off-topic. The GPL has nothing to do with who owns
> SME server code.
Sure, but the ownership is only of historic interest when anyone has
the right to fork code and redistribute. And even the owners could
not do anything different unless they can all be identified and reach
an agreement - at least for any individual thing that constitutes a
'work' in the copyright sense.
--
Les Mikesell
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Discussion about project organisation and overall direction
To unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected]
Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
