On Fri, 14 May 1999, Norman Richards wrote:
> > No. You are the copyright holder. If you choose to distribute
> > version 1.01 free, but make 1.02 a commercial program, that's up to
> > you. The license restricts OTHER people. You, as the copyright
> > holder, do not need a license.
>
> I think this is correct, but to allay the concerns of the previous
> poster, I will point out that even if 1.02 is released under a
> non-free license, that new license cannot invalidate or change the
> 1.01 license. The prior license is still valid and cannot be
> terminated. (if it could be, it would not be a free license)
> Therefore, the 1.01 version will always remain free.
Let me try to summarize.
I distribute version 1.0 to Bob under GPL.
No matter what I do thereafter, Bob can do whatever he wants with that
program within in the limits of the GPL. Can I then distribute version
1.0 at a later date to someone else under a different license (not that
I'd do that, I'm just trying to understand how copyright works).
Then version 1.2 comes along, and I decide to distribute it under a closed
source license. I have a right to do that as long as my code doesn't
contain any pieces whose copyright *other people* own (unless their
copyright permits me to take their code, put in my program, restrict the
source, and distribute it).
Now for an interesting question. If I realease a GPL'd program and
someone contributes a bug report and fix to me without requesting that he
keep the copyright, then I can release a new version under GPL with his
bug fix and only my name in the Copyright, right? Then at some point, I
can suddenly restrict the license to the code, including his bug fix. I
could actually restrict the source including bug fixes that I haven't made
public. (Of course, the contributors of those bug fixes could publish
them separately.) Thus, I suppose that anyone who makes a significant
contribution to a GPL'd program should keep the copyright to his piece of
code (perhaps as a separate GPL'd program) if he wants to make sure that
the program doesn't suddenly become closed source without his permission.
Of course, this whole discussion is pointless if a case ever goes to court
involving the GPL, and the GPL is struck down as not legally valid. I
wonder what it would take for someone to decide to take a GPL case to
court. Actually, I wonder what it would take for the Free Software
Foundation to approve of such an action. I imagine they like the current
situation where the GPL *might* be valid in full, and everyone just obeys
it as a matter of convention and social pressure.
-------------------------------------------
Tom Bryan
Applied Research Laboratories
University of Texas at Austin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
