From owner-freebsd-advocacy Thu Jul 5 10:48:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151FB37B405 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:48:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97] ident=root) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #7) id 15IDEb-0009eT-00; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:48:13 +0100 Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f65HmB078324; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:48:11 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:48:11 +0100 From: j mckitrick To: Wes Peters Cc: Dirk Myers , freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <20010705184811.A78227@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <3B449C54.EC88E204@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3B449C54.EC88E204@softweyr.com>; from wes@softweyr.com on Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 10:56:52AM -0600 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 | > So what you are saying, then, is that 'Free Software' in the FSF definition | > is not just GPL'ed, but also has the copyright signed over to the FSF so | > they can 'insure' that the code will remain forever GPL'ed? If so, that is | > damn scary. | This is exactly what the GPL *and* the BSD license are, an unlimited license | to copy your work. This doesn't infer any rights for others to copy any other | works by you, including later revisions, but you can't go back and change | the license terms on the version you sent out. I thing my word choice obscured my intent: The FSF holds the copyright to insure that the PROJECT will remain forever GPL'ed. This is what I actually meant, I think. An author could release GPL'ed code, then a year later, release a new version binary only with a non-GPL license, or perhaps BSD licensed. While the originally GPL'ed code would remain such, the new code would not. So, as I understand it, the goal of the FSF is to make sure that the PROJECT continues to be GPL'ed, that no one can change the license on the PROJECT from that day forward... except for the FSF, of course. Jonathon -- Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message