On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 12:32:38PM +1300, Theuns Verwoerd wrote: > The way it was explained to me a while ago boiled down to the following: > 1. You own the code to begin with. > 2. When applying a GPL, the code tree basically splits. The GPL version > is irrevocably GPL, as are any descendants. The other branch is still > yours to do with as you please. > 3. Transferring code from the GPL version into the non-GPL version > taints the latter into being GPL.
exactly. > So, in order to have both a GPL and a non-GPL version of the code, > you split the tree and maintain both separately. Ideally, changes would > be made to the commercial version and then transferred into the > GPL (rather than the other way 'round). yes, the listar guys work(ed?) with this approach. contributions as code are rewritten from scratch to make sure that nobody else gets a portion of the copyright. another approach is to accept contributions only when people sign over the copyright. roxen does this, for example. greetings, martin. -- i am looking for a job anywhere in the world, doing pike programming, caudium/pike/roxen training, roxen/caudium and/or unix system administration. -- pike programmer Traveling in Korea (www|db).hb2.tuwien.ac.at unix (iaeste|bahai).or.at (www.archlab|iaeste).tuwien.ac.at systemadministrator (stuts|black.linux-m68k).org mud.at is.(schon.org|root.at) Martin B"ahr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/
