On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 15:13, Rahul Sundaram <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/22/2011 02:27 PM, Roshan Mathews wrote: >> 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. > > Yes, I was aware that there wasn't any deal (asking for citation for > this isn't useful because noone can prove a negative). > You can't be "aware" of a negative, unless you can prove it. In that case you were only unaware of the deal, which you post facto decided to call "an informal agreement", despite it being characterized as a written promise.
> My objection to your understanding is that I don't believe that there > was any copyright transfer to FSF. Aladdin held the copyright and > licensed it under GPL and various other licenses but never transferred > copyright which is the entire basis of their business model. It is > possible to practise dual licensing without copyright transfer but only > if the contributed portions are permissively licensed which was not the > case for Ghostscript. > Again, do you have any evidence to back up your belief? Or should we just take it at face value? Looking at the releases in http://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/gnu/ ... version 2.3 was "Copyright (C) 1988 Richard M. Stallman", version 4.03 was "Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc." In 2004, Ghostscript left the GNU project and changed it's name from GNU Ghostscript to GPL Ghostscript. The rest of your of your statements are non-sequiturs to what I said. True, but irrelevant to the points you were replying to. Now, unless you have something to add based on facts you are aware of, you are just trolling. Please don't do that, it just wastes everybody's time. Roshan Mathews -- http://about.me/rosh _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
