nemesis wrote:
>> 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.

I was referring to the concept that "the original author can always 
dual-license it."  That isn't true if the copyright has been given to FSF.

> The original GPLed code can't be closed by anyone, like MIT code.

Original MIT code can't be closed by anyone either.

> 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...

I agree with all of this. My disapproval is of the attempts to take code 
from people that doesn't fall under the GPL and doesn't contain any code of 
a GPLed project, and force them to release it under the GPL.

-- 
   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