Darren New escreveu:
> 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.

It was exactly about the FSF I was talking about, following from the gcc 
case.

>> 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.

No, he can't because he explicitely stated otherwise by abiding by the 
GPL terms.

He can, as copyright owner, license it all under another license and 
begin anew, even closed source, from there on with worthy improvements 
to the code, just as some commercial entity can take away a MIT project 
and do the same.  The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, 
like MIT code.

>> 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.

The majority of GPL'd code out there is not GNU and copyrights are 
retained by the original authors, which is what really fuels GPL 
projects, since everyone benefits from collaborative development and 
still retain their copyrights in face of leechers.

If you're willing to donate code patches to the FSF though, you are well 
aware of the consequences and are willing to take the risk perhaps 
because you think it'll be of benefit for everyone, including yourself 
(like, others can take the burden of maintaining the software, even your 
changes).  Even though Stallman may end up being nothing more than a 
evil leecher and a hypocrite.  I believe it's more likely though that 
he'll be assaulted by ninjas...

Post a reply to this message