On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:38:25 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Well, "free" is an overloaded term in English.  As I stated elsewhere
>> in this (or a similar) discussion, "free" is "gratis" but it *also* is
>> "libre".  FSF talks about "Free" in the "Libre" sense, not the "gratis"
>> sense.
> 
>   I understand what the FSF is talking about. However, I strongly
>   disagree
> in two counts:

Oh, I misunderstood - I thought *you* were saying that there was only one 
definition for "free", not the FSF.  I don't disagree with your points 
from that point of view, though I think the FSF's usage of "Free" is that 
authors are "free" to not have their work incorporated into another 
product that's closed source - ie, they're free to know where their code 
is being used.  That is perhaps a bit more convoluted.

But I don't know that the GPL overrides anything that the original author 
permits - you can do plenty as long as you ask for permission.  I would 
be surprised if a court anywhere upheld that the author of a piece of 
software released under the GPL couldn't dual-license it (for example - 
and that's already done, just look at MySQL for an example of that type 
of arrangement).

Jim

Post a reply to this message