> My issue revolves around this thorny point: how > well does the MPL/NPL/GPL tri-license cut the source's > ownership strings with Netscape/AOL.
The code is "owned" by whoever wrote it, under copyright law. This applies in every case, unless the owner places the code in the public domain. The owner may always do anything (*anything*) with code they own. Netscape does not own the Mozilla code. They own large bits, but what they themselves own would not be functional if seperated from the rest of the code - and, of course, exactly where the boundries between my code and your code are is sketchy at best. Netscape does not gain ownership of code placed under the NPL (which many people get confused about). The author of the code can still do anything with it, but the author has given Netscape the right to do a broad range of things which doesn't quite tally up to "anything" with the code as well. > The usual spirit > of the GPL has it that the "owner" of a given work > can assert his/her ownership only 1) with regard to > re-licensing for-profit That's completely wrong. a] The author of any work, GPL'd or otherwise, can do anything at all with it, including relicencing it under any terms whatsoever. b] GPL'd works can be distributed for profit. > 2) with regard to the right > to be identified as the owner/copyright holder/originator Almost right. > and 3) via contract law which upholds the license's > intent that the software shall remain free of monetary > value. GPL'd software is not free of monetary value. The owner of the software is the only one who can sue someone who breaches the licence, so the concept of the owner is more vital than you might imagine.
