nemesis wrote:
>> Firstly, you understand that by giving the FSF the copyright, you've 
>> given them permission to prevent you from releasing your own code with 
>> a different license, right?
> 
> Yes, and I'm pretty sure all GPL contributors willing to do so, 
> including commercial entities, are well aware of it.
> 
>> Copyright is the right to restrict others from copying your work. It's 
>> not the right to copy it, but to prevent others from doing so.
> 
> [...]   The copyright holder
> of the original GPL'd code is still the same,

Not if you've given the copyright to the FSF.

> but what does this mean 
> when he explicitely grants others the right to use, copy and modify it?

That he can prevent you from copying it.

> The only power left to FSF is if they suddenly change from a foundation 
> to a corporation and license the body of GNU software under a 
> restrictive commercial license 

Yep. Not that I'm saying they will. I'm just pointing out that the assertion 
that the original author can always dual-license the code is incorrect if 
you've turned the copyright over to the FSF.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message