From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jul 3 12:12:29 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mail.dobox.com (mail.dobox.com [208.187.122.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30CEF37B403 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:12:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@dobox.com) Received: (qmail 18690 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2001 19:14:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dobox.com) (10.0.1.29) by spinoff.dobox.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2001 19:14:15 -0000 Message-ID: <3B421AA2.6AA4A80D@dobox.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:18:58 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: DoBox Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; OpenBSD 2.7 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: j mckitrick Cc: Wes Peters , Rahul Siddharthan , Giorgos Keramidas , Dirk Myers , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG j mckitrick wrote: > > | > Does this mean the existing code does or does NOT continue to be under > | the > | > terms of the original license before it was changed? > | > | You can only change the license terms if all parties agree. You seem to > | be completely and utterly misunderstanding the entire conversation here. > > I think I know what threw me off. It was the whole concept of why the FSF > wants to be copyright holder. IIUC *now*, this is to make sure no one > changes the license from the GPL, correct? Since there are no other > copyright owners in this case, this is a given. FSF code will always > remain under the GPL license, then. Under *some* GPL, then. It does give them carte-blanche to move code to newer, more restrictive licenses and to stop *their* maintenance of the older code. It does not allow them to take existing code distributed under GPL v2 or GPL v1 "off the market," but I doubt such code will last for long without the ongoing support of the FSF, or the GNU project. > 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, and they occasionally do. Most will bark if you wave enough money at them. I strongly suspect the FSF won't. > | (please forgive any formatting bogons, I'm trying out a new mailer.) > > Which one? StarOffice. It does work with IMAP-SSL, but the user interface is glacial. (Big surprise). -- Boats love me Sails fear me Wes Peters System Architect http://www.dobox.com/ DoBox Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message