On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Stuart Jansen <sjan...@buscaluz.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 20:35 -0600, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> Yes, that's it. If there's a chunk of your code that's linked to the
>> rest that you want to keep private, for whatever reason, you cannot
>> use the GPL with the rest of your code.
>
> Not entirely true. If you control the copyright on all of the code, you
> can do whatever you want. That's what makes dual licensing possible, and
> one of the reason some companies insist on copyright assignment before
> accepting contributions. Of course, if you depend on someone else's
> GPL'd code, you don't control the copyright of all the code and are
> therefore subject to the GPL.
That's a good point, and a valid way to work around the problem if you
don't want/need to take advantage of any GPL libraries you don't own
the copyright to in the non-private portions. The GPL just creates
what seems sometimes like a minefield for those who want to keep some
things private. That's the intention of it, really. I think it makes
more sense in this case to just use a permissive license.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
