>Adrian: Actually, by licencing something under the GPL it means that we
>have to continue to licence it under the GPL - no other licence is
>compatible with the GPL. The GPL will allow other licences to be changed
>to it, but once something is under the GPL, it is under the GPL for good.
>Besides, if we gave the stack to Scott under a different licence, he would
>distribute it under a different licence, and so on...
<SNIP!>
>Adrian: At this stage, I don't think it is important to consider how the
>choice of licence affects our arrangements with MetaCard. We choose a
>licence that provides the freedom and protection that we want - then if
>MetaCard want to make an agreement with us under those terms, we discuss
>it then. Changing our aims for the licence because it might increase
>development time isn't wise. It's better to take longer to achieve
>something great, instead of quicker to create something poor.
When we accept the GPL, we do not give up our rights as authors. We just
grant others rights. But if we like, we can release our stuff under *any*
licence, whenever we feel like it. The need is just that all authors have
to agree. This last fact is why it's usually easier to have the licence
before creating anything, because then everybody knows what conditions it
will be released under, and will only submit something when they agree,
which means we can be sure that we'll be able to use what we get, because
we're backed by the licence.
OTOH we might need to re-write some author's part before we can release it
under another licence if that person doesn't agree.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
