On 03/22/2011 02:27 PM, Roshan Mathews wrote: > > You didn't ask for citations or evidence, you asserted that the > opposite was true. Your ambiguous language and tone made it look like > you knew what you were talking about.
Yes, I was aware that there wasn't any deal (asking for citation for this isn't useful because noone can prove a negative) more importantly, I think there is a confusion over copyright and copyright licensing. See below. > So, a promise made to someone in writing is not a deal, but an > informal arrangement? Is that your objection to what I originally > wrote? Should I have said "Peter Deutsch, the creator of Ghostscript > had an informal arrangement (in writing) with RMS to release it under > the GPL (and transfer copyrights to the FSF), but used to release the > latest version under a different license"? My objection to your understanding is that I don't believe that there was any copyright transfer to FSF. Aladdin held the copyright and licensed it under GPL and various other licenses but never transferred copyright which is the entire basis of their business model. It is possible to practise dual licensing without copyright transfer but only if the contributed portions are permissively licensed which was not the case for Ghostscript. Rahul _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
