[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hypothetical situation to chew on

Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:25:49PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law.  The presumption is "All 
>>>rights reserved unless you have explicit permission".
>>Somehow, I doubt you'd say that about a GPL-licensed package with one
>>author who wants to grant a proprietary license to make money.  The only
>>difference between this situation and that one is that we like the
>>license change in one of them. :)
> I assume you mean "with many authors, one of which wants to ...", and
> not "with only one author, who wants to ...".  I don't think most
> people find offensive the notion of a sole copyright holder of a GPL-
> licensed work granting proprietary licenses for a fee.

That's exactly what I meant; I just used a bad phrasing of the
statement.  What I meant was "a GPL-licensed package (no statement about
the total number of authors), with one author who wants to ..."; in
retrospect, the interpretation "a GPL-licensed package with (only) one
author" is far more natural given the way I stated it.  Thanks for the

I certainly don't find the other interpretation offensive; on the
contrary, it seems like a highly successful business model for Free

- Josh Triplett

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: