From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Aug 18 19:28:56 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.hiwaay.net (fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B1837B42C for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:28:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nospam.hiwaay.net (tnt6-216-180-4-172.dialup.HiWAAY.net [216.180.4.172]) by mail.hiwaay.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e7J2SpW10797; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:28:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nospam.hiwaay.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA54783; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:27:53 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net) Message-Id: <200008190227.VAA54783@nospam.hiwaay.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Brett Glass Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Sun's web site In-reply-to: Message from Brett Glass of "Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:28:51 MDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20000817232506.04d0d100@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:27:53 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brett Glass writes: > At 05:19 PM 8/17/2000, David Kelly wrote: > > >Notice under GPL you do not give up the copyright on the software. You > >still own it and control it. > > The same is true under the BSD license. You say that as if you think I'm defending GPL. > >Presumably even the mods others (anonymous > >contributors who don't go to lengths to claim their own copyright on the > >revisions) put into it. What I'm saying is the copyright holder is still > >free at a later date to jump back in with a non-GPL version including > >developments during its GPL phase. > > But no one will buy it. Why would nobody buy a proprietary something based on GPL'ed code? Somebody needs to explain this to RedHat. And BSDi. Before they go broke. > What's more, that version must be free of any > additions which were contributed by third parties under the GPL. Because > this is difficult to do, the GPL in effect wrests control away from > the copyright holder. The horse is out of the barn for good, and the > copyright holder cannot profit from licensing the software. I disagree. See my other lengthy message. I believe the original copyright holder retains all rights and assumes the rights suckered out of those who worked as sub-slave labor on enhancements. Their work is still GPL and can not be pulled from public use once released but no where in the GPL is the licensor bound by his own terms and prevented from forking under different terms. > Knowing full well that you're likely not to be able to find the > contributors and/or that at least some of them will almost certainly > refuse due to GPL zealotry. What's more, because individuals' > contributions are not clearly delineated, it is impossible to remove > these persons' code. Back to my other message. Since when can "anonymous" hold copyright? > The GPL still sabotages any effort to use the code commercially. That is > its intended purpose, and it does it quite well. It sabotages efforts of anyone other than the original copyright holder who is the granter of the terms stipulated the GPL. It sabotages anyone else's efforts to fork a non-GPL version. But not the originator's. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message