Craig Dickson wrote:
By that logic, what is to stop some company from releasing their product under the 'GPL' and then never releasing the source and requiring per-seat 'royalties' for the use of their patented IP?Travis Crump wrote:Colin Watson wrote:That of course doesn't prevent the holders of LAME's copyright from
releasing it under the GPL, since the copyright holders are not
themselves bound by the terms of the licence,Why shouldn't they be bound by the terms of the licence?Because they did not receive it under the license, obviously.As copyright holders they are perfectly able to distribute under whatever other license they want, but if they decide to release under a license than it seems like they should be just as obligated to fullfill all the parts of the license as anyone else.
No, because they are the authority that grants the license, not a member of the set of people to whom the license is granted.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
