On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 13:57, Rahul Sundaram <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/22/2011 01:19 PM, Roshan Mathews wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 13:14, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> Aladdin, who were the sole copyright holders of Ghostscript invented the >>> dual licensing model. You claimed that Aladdin had a deal with FSF. I >>> don't see any evidence of that. >>> >> You didn't see any evidence to the contrary either. > > If you provide the claim, I am not going to look for evidence to the > contrary. That wouldn't make sense. > You didn't ask for citations or evidence, you asserted that the opposite was true. Your ambiguous language and tone made it look like you knew what you were talking about.
>> Quoting from http://devlinux.org/deutsch-interview.html#sec6 >> >> "[...] I promised Stallman in writing that all future versions of >> Ghostscript >> would be released with the GPL." > > Is this what you are referring to as a deal with FSF? This is merely a > informal arrangement with RMS at best. If you are a copyright holder, > how you license your software is your sole discretion. > So, a promise made to someone in writing is not a deal, but an informal arrangement? Is that your objection to what I originally wrote? Should I have said "Peter Deutsch, the creator of Ghostscript had an informal arrangement (in writing) with RMS to release it under the GPL (and transfer copyrights to the FSF), but used to release the latest version under a different license"? -- http://about.me/rosh _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
