Re: [discussion] GPL/ownership (Re: Koozali history assistance)

2013-10-23 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Charlie Brady charlieb-contribs-discuss...@budge.apana.org.au wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Gordon Rowell gord...@gormand.com.au wrote: Has anyone actually owned the community version of e-smith/SME? When Mitel bought e-smith, I bet they were

Re: [discussion] GPL/ownership (Re: Koozali history assistance)

2013-10-23 Thread Charlie Brady
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013, Les Mikesell wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Charlie Brady charlieb-contribs-discuss...@budge.apana.org.au wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Gordon Rowell gord...@gormand.com.au wrote: Has anyone actually owned the community version of

Re: [discussion] GPL/ownership (Re: Koozali history assistance)

2013-10-23 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Charlie Brady charlieb-contribs-discuss...@budge.apana.org.au wrote: Technically true, but in practice it means that non-owners have the same rights as owners except in rare circumstances. So it makes ownership meaningless. Thats just pure BS, Les. Owners

Re: [discussion] GPL/ownership (Re: Koozali history assistance)

2013-10-23 Thread Charlie Brady
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013, Les Mikesell wrote: On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Charlie Brady charlieb-contribs-discuss...@budge.apana.org.au wrote: Technically true, but in practice it means that non-owners have the same rights as owners except in rare circumstances. So it makes ownership

Re: [discussion] GPL/ownership (Re: Koozali history assistance)

2013-10-23 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Charlie Brady charlieb-contribs-discuss...@budge.apana.org.au wrote: What is the owner of one component of a GPL'd work (where there are other components and owners involved) permitted to do that a non-owner could not? I don't know what you mean by where

Re: [discussion] GPL/ownership (Re: Koozali history assistance)

2013-10-23 Thread Greg Zartman
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.comwrote: Sure, but the ownership is only of historic interest when anyone has the right to fork code and redistribute. And even the owners could not do anything different unless they can all be identified and reach an

Re: [discussion] GPL/ownership (Re: Koozali history assistance)

2013-10-23 Thread Les Mikesell
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Greg Zartman g...@leiengineering.com wrote: I'm pretty sure what Charlie is saying is that the copyright holder of the GPL work can build proprietary works off the GPLed work and distribute it without providing the source code. This seems to make sense to me.

Re: [discussion] GPL/ownership (Re: Koozali history assistance)

2013-10-23 Thread John Crisp
On 23/10/13 20:39, Les Mikesell wrote: Lots .. :-) All interesting stuff but complete OT. All I wanted was some factual history. Can anyone please add to the original question or I'll make sure I won't let truth get in the way of a good story and make it up myself ;-) B. Rgds John PS If