On Monday 14 September 2009, ck raju wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:28 AM, vid <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?? > > Is telling other "no one should control others.." a kind of control ? > Is this *control* the same as the control others exhibit - think its a > debate for sake of debating...
Not really. It is essential to be unambiguous. GPL does not take away ownership. Thus you can dual licence. The GPL controls. BSDL controls. All licences control. In fact the essence of copyright is control over copying and distribution of authored material. In the case of software we have additional components generated from the original - binaries and libraries - causing all the complications which necessitate a very clever licencing scheme called GPL. We are mixing up availability of control as provided by law (a prerequisite for enforcement of any law) and intent - something open to interpretation. The GPL uses coyright (endowed to the proprietor) to provide several rights to copy and distribute and several restrictions to prevent binary only distribution (or removal of those rights to downstream recipients). P.S. Philip Tellis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayttm) brought this up during one of the flame wars on exactly similiar issues on ilug-bom. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
