On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Thomas Nichols wrote:
> At 23:53 27/09/2001 -0700, Avi Cherry wrote:
> >>Yes, the site says so. But this is interesting! Once GPLed code cannot be
> >>made non-GPL later on even by the original author.
> >
> >Depends how you look at it. They can't prevent earlier versions from
> >being re-distributed according to the GPL, but they can re-licence the
> >code any way they want for newer versions, preventing IT from being
> >redistributed. The original author still owns the code, and can licence
> >it any way they want, as many different ways as they want.
>
> Hmmm, I'm not sure it _does_ depend how you look at it. From the GPL
> included (file "COPYING") with the MindTerm v1.0 code, section 2:
>
> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> parties under the terms of this License.
>
> So unless MindTerm v2 is a complete rewrite (which it may be), they'll be
> in breach of the GPL. Which is probably not a good idea.
>
Nope.
I could be wrong, but I'm under the _strong_ impression that Avi is
correct. Even if MindTerm v2 is NOT a complete rewrite, the copyright
owners can relicense however they want to. This doesn't prevent you from
legally redistributing any copies that had been released as GPL. The
owners of the code can't revoke the freedoms they had previously granted;
but going forward they can assign different freedoms to the code they
produce. This includes "releases" that have no actual modifications to
source or binaries.
:ml
> - Thomas.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
