Jim Henderson  wrote in message <487cff16@news.povray.org>:
>			   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.

That would be very convoluted. Fortunately, that is not what the FSF calls
free: what you are describing is what they call "copyleft". Copyleft was
designed as a weapon to fight against proprietary software.

The only interaction between copyleft and free according to the FSF is that
FSF considers that software under copyleft is free enough to be called such.

That is not completely absurd. For example, a lot of countries put their
criminals in prison after a fair trial; these countries are still considered
as free countries.

>								  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

There would be absolutely no base for that, fortunately.

Post a reply to this message