Darren New escreveu:
> 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.

True.  Perhaps I should've written "the copyright owner can always 
dual-license it", but that would lead to further ambiguity, like in the 
case of someone submitting code to a large project only to find out it 
really wouldn't matter to dual code his lone little patch.  What sense 
does it make to release it in, say, a closed-source license, something 
that is but a little part of a far larger GPL'd whole and which wouldn't 
exist independently of it?

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

I thought I said that in that very sentence, but now reading it looks 
ambiguous, yes.  Sorry.

> 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.

It doesn't force anyone any more than the GPL forces everyone to use Linux.

Post a reply to this message