On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:59:59PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote: > You are forgetting one important thing: you can only relicense the parts > of the software that you own the copyright for! Let me give you an example > of a relicense you cannot do. > > Let's say that product XYZ is GPL. You create an improved version, and call > it XYZ++, and release it under the GPL. Now, a client of yours wants to > buy the rights to XYZ++ which will allow them to make their own changes it > and to sell the resulting product without its source. You simply cannot sell > these rights to them!
While you're correct about my inability to do so (I do realize it, but thanks anyway for a concrete example), the reason you cannot sell your client the right to distribute XYZ++ or a modified version of it without the source isn't that XYZ cannot be distributed without its source. XYZ as a product is no longer relevant; what's relevant is those provisions of the license of XYZ that allowed you to create a new product, XYZ++. Among those provisions was your obligation to license XYZ++ under the GPL to all third parties, in case you distribute XYZ++ at all. If you sell the *rights* to XYZ++ to your client (as opposed to a license to use XYZ++), you pass on those obligations to them as well, and now *they* cannot distribute any work based on XYZ++ without also distributing it under the GPL. > The fact that you also release XYZ++ under the GPL doesn't help you. I know; I wasn't claiming the existence of a huge loophole around the GPL's requirements. There is none (as far as I'm aware). -- avva "There's nothing simply good, nor ill alone" -- John Donne ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
