Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:02:04 -0700 From: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> To: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <3B4216AC.5835E156@acuson.com> References: <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702180222.A2667@hades.hell.gr> <20010702161055.A18543@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702172448.I4896@lpt.ens.fr> <3B41F0E4.B55E6937@softweyr.com> <20010703172216.F39318@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010703.12235600@star.dobox.com> <20010703195732.A42423@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
j mckitrick wrote: > Isn't one of the arguments of the GPL that the author *could* make their GPL > code available under separate license for proprietary use? Yes it is. But only the author can do so. Even the FSF could release their stuff under a proprietary license if they wanted to. But this isn't different from any other license. Licenses are restrictions on the user and not on the author. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B4216AC.5835E156>