Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 11:45:34 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: dg@root.com Cc: Snob Art Genre <ben@narcissus.ml.org>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@nuxi.com>, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702181845.LAA18064@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199702180957.BAA05064@root.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970218013345.1767A-100000@narcissus.ml.org> <199702180957.BAA05064@root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> 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? > > > >It's allowable, because you, as the author of the GPL'd code, have the > >right to release yourself from the GPL, I believe. > > Suppose that 20 other people contributed patches to it during the time > it was under GPL? ...you'd have to get written permission from all of those > people before you could put a different copyright on it. This is why the FSF requires that all submitters of code to their tools sign over the Copyright to the FSF, which apparently will make sure the code is always free. (Although last night I had a interesting discussion on that point where it would be possible that the code could become 'non-free') Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702181845.LAA18064>