On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote: > The GPL is not a contract, but one clause states that there must be > source code provided, so while a copyright holder can violate the GPL > by releasing under a different license, but the copyright holder can't > release under the GPL and at the same time violate the GPL. The idea is that the copyright holder doesn't need a license to do anything, so they can do whatever they want, including doing something which doesn't allow other people to do anything because of some inconsistency.
Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]