Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 07:07:22 -0800 (PST) From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970218070319.25865B-100000@harlie> In-Reply-To: <19970217235135.LP40831@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, David O'Brien wrote: > Here is a [real life] question for you. > Say someone has written fooquix and from version 0.01 to 0.49 it was > GPL'ed. Then they decided they wanted to make some $$$ from it. So the > next release (say 0.50) was binary only. Now obiviously 0.50 is derived > work based on the GPL'ed code of 0.49. > > Is this allowable, or once software is under GLP it stays there? The way I've seen this situation described is as this: It's the release of the code that is licensed (under GPL or other), so you can release the exact same code under two different licenses. This is how AFS went commercial. If you can find a copy of the pre-commercial version, you can still use it. On the other hand, if 0.49 was GPLed because of the inclusion of GPL code, 0.50 could only be non-GPL if the GPL'ed code was replaced by something not derived from GPLed code.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970218070319.25865B-100000>