At 09:23 03/02/2001 +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > header so that now new_foo.c is GPL, he then
> > reintroduces new_foo.c as foo.c and procedes to
> > do the same with the other 34 modules (which
> > contain real code),
>
>What do you mean by "reintroduces"? ImBad couldn't check this code into
>mozilla.org because a) he doesn't have checkin rights and b) it's not
>dual-licensed.
Checking code back in is a red herring. If its worthwhile on its own then
its worth the fork and as GPL is a de facto fork its a non argument.
> > month, IOweYou launches MyProgram for free, which
> > is an exact copy of Simon's company Program,
>
>Where did IOweYou get the source for the proprietary bits of Program, if
>any? (If there are no proprietary bits, MyBusiness is not selling much.)
The point is there doesn't have to be any proprietary code, otherwise your
argument is that in order to safeguard a developer's access to derivatives
of their own code they have to hide some proprietary doohickey which
obviously isn't the desired aim. All of the contributions can be Open
Source but the licencing can restrict the original author from using
derivatives of that code.
I'd also like to point out that the Mozilla 1.1 Licence in the tree at the
moment includes this dual licencing language still and so contributors may
actually be dual licencing their work without their knowledge or
consent. Of course it may simply be that someone has decided that keeping
quiet about the licencing fiasco will just allow it to wither and it will
degenerate into a GPL licence anyway.
Simon
>Gerv
============================
We are not here to be nice to people.
S.P.L.
