On Aug 25, 2:48 am, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Aug 21, 4:08 pm, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> The GPL is not a "tit for tat" license: the upstream author gets > >> nothing from the recipient by defaul, nor does he have any right to. > >> But any further downstream recipients get all the rights the GPL > >> guarantees. The GPL ensures that no recipient gets crippled software, > >> software which can't be serviced. It is the software engineering > >> equivalent of placing good schematics inside of any sold appliance. > > >> So the GPL is "tat for tat" rather than "tit for tat": it is not > >> reciprocal but seminal. > > > Oh, so you can go and profit off of the other person's work, > > _provided_ that it stays free and GPL. > > Not really. You can keep the result all to yourself, profit from its > use, and let nobody have it. >
? I don't understand. I can keep what result, the other person's work, what? > > I was meaning trying to make it proprietary. And was agreeing that > > that was an obvious no-no. > > No, that's perfectly allowed. What _isn't_ allowed is distribution of > versions under proprietary terms to third parties. All the copies of > the modified work are your own physical property. You are just not > allowed to license this to _third_ parties under terms not compatible > with the GPL. > What I was saying was an obvious no-no was exactly what you were saying is a no-no. I was saying distribution of versions of someone else's GPL code under propietary terms to third parties was a no no, that's what I meant by "make it proprietary". > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
