John Hasler wrote: > zapro writes: > If you are the sole copyright owner, of course. You can distribute your > work under any terms you wish. The terms under which you have previously > distributed it are irrelevant. If you are not the sole copyright owner you > must get the agreement of all the other owners.
I see, thanks John. Yes I am the sole copyright owner. I also found this very clear Licensing howto by esr: http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#changing stating the same things you said. > > Going beyond my specific problem, I guess I am confused by the concept of > > "different": to what extent two pieces of code can be considered > > different in order to be published with at least "similar" licenses (such > > as the GPL / LGPL), also provided the author is the same? > > I am confused by your question. Sorry about that. I guess the question derived from me not knowing what exactly copyright grants me, and to (wrongly) consider the GPL as a contract. > The fact that a work has been distributed > under the GPL is no bar to its copyright owner distributing it under other > terms. The license is a unilateral grant from you to others. It does not > bind you in any way. Well, the main concern behind my doubts is (or was) the following: If I had distributed v1.0 of my code under GPL, that grants other users the rights to modify, redistribute it and republish it under the same terms. If I understand well, it's like I am not the owner of the code: I just wrote it. So these rights can't just be taken back for v1.0: other people could have made useful programs with it, and republished it. However, as you said, if I make v1.01, then I can change the license, even making it proprietary. Is this correct? _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
