zapro writes: > I see, thanks John. Yes I am the sole copyright owner. I also found > this very clear Licensing howto by esr:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#changing > stating the same things you said. It's good to hear that Eric got it right :) > If I had distributed v1.0 of my code under GPL, that grants other users > the rights to modify, redistribute it and republish it under the same > terms. If I understand well, it's like I am not the owner of the code: I > just wrote it. You are the owner of the code. You have granted recipients of copies certain rights under the terms of the GPL. > So these rights can't just be taken back for v1.0: other people could > have made useful programs with it, and republished it. You cannot revoke the rights you have granted to those people (without cause). However, releasing a copy under a different license does not affect their rights. > However, as you said, if I make v1.01, then I can change the license, > even making it proprietary. Is this correct? There is no need for a new version. You could release the exact same work simultaneously under the GPL and the Microsoft EULA, under the GPL first and the EULA second, or the reverse. Think of a license as being attached to the physical copies that you distribute under it, not to the abstract concept of the "work". Just because you licensed a copy to me under the GPL does not preclude you from licensing a copy to Isaac under closed-source terms, nor do the terms under which you license a copy to him affect my rights in any way. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss