On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:32:11 +0000 (UTC) "Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose I want to release some software but I either don't want to or > cannot (my house burned down 10 years ago and I lost the source > scenario) release source code for it. > > Is it still possible for (legal) recipients of my software to > redistribute (potentially hex-hacked) copies under the GPL I grant > them? Yes. This would be similar to receiving a GPLed program written in Intercal, for example. > My first instinct (and IANAL so it's most likely wrong; please tell me > exactly how and why if so) is that it would be okay, because I would > be the copyright holder and hence I get to define what the "preferred > form" for modification is for licensees. That I might have or might > once have had a more convenient form is my private matter. Or is it? This is indeed my understanding of the rights of the copyright owner. > The reason I wonder is that there is still an awful lot of old > software floating around that is still useful to some people, and for > all I know the source code may be lost forever. Supposing the > copyright holder can be tracked down, and is willing to cooperate, is > it conceivably possible to get all this stuff released under the GPL? I would think so. The GPL is a workable license for abandonware, IMHO. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
