On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 09:27, ck raju <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:16 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: >> Clarification: All FLOSS code is proprietary - someone owns the copyright and >> hence it is proprietary. Ownership of copyright is a prerequisite for >> enforcing the GPL. So one would have to stick to "closed and / or non >> standard" as appropriate, instead of non-proprietary. >> The letter wrongly states that floss code is not proprietary. > > It depends on how one interprets proprietary. I understand > "proprietary" as a kind of ownership where owner *controls all > rights* over the use of such proprietary product or service, which is > not the case with copyright-ed code released under GPL.
I have a doubt : Is it not possible for the floss-code-writer to use parts of his GPL code in a proprietary software when s/he may not distribute the binaries?? -- vid http://vid.svaksha.com || _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
