OFB Community Mailing Lists

[David Aikema]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:09:34 -0500, Aaron Lehmann
<lehmanap at lehmanap.dyndns.org> wrote:
> I have NOT acknowledged that it actually DOES perpetuate freedom though.
> To the contrary.  If A writes some software from scratch, he has the
> right to do whatever he wishes with it.  He can sell or release it as a
> proprietary package, he can sell or release it as a more open package,
> he can keep it and use it himself.  These are his rights.  Lets suppose
> he has listened to RMS's hype and he releases it under the GPL.  Now
> lets say that developer B gets ahold of the software and improves it.
> He has less rights than A did.  He can sell it as an open product or
> release it for free as an open product, or keep it to himself.  He
> cannot however, sell it or release it as a proprietary product.  The
> terms of the GPL deny him full rights to his code.  This from a liscense

The terms of the GPL do not deny him any rights.  If B wishes to sell
a proprietary software app, then B can contact A and work out a
different license for the code that B would like to use in the
proprietary software.  Nothing in the GPL prevents dual-licensing.  It
would make it horrendously complicated though if you have to work out
separate licensing agreements with 100+ independent contributors to a
software package.

Anyone have any thoughts about the thread over at OS Ministry arguing
for a specifically Christian license -
http://osministry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11 ?

David