Hmm... Semantics. Legalities. This is all very confusing. I guess a prime example of a GPL project that was re-licensed is ssh. ssh1 is still being developed under the original GPL release license. However, the new ssh2 was rereleased under a proprietary license by DataFellows -- I am assuming as a direct result of the original author of the ssh1 selling the copyrights to DataFellows. What I wonder, at this point, is how much of the GPL contributed code to ssh1 was or could be incorporated in the ssh2 (or any other theoretical software package for that matter)? My assumption is that none of the GPL contributed code, that given to the original author of the package, could be used for a relicensing of the package. Imagine all of the contributing authors who would be out of the benefit or profit of relicensing the software, because they, in fact, are authors -- correct? Are their rights compromised at this point?
What I COULD understand is that if someone were to take a GPL project and build an additional module, which was proprietarily licensed, and sell that. This itself may be beneficial to all parties involved. The original authors retain their rights and the new author has benefited from using a GPL software from which to build his/her own additions from.
...and I will supply the munitions for this honorable crusader. But we would also have to go further than just getting rid of Leo. We'd have to place Lucus through years of intensive psycho-therapy!
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL copyleft says nothing about charging for the media and publishing costs of the book... *big hint here*.
Hmm... Semantics. Legalities. This is all very confusing. I guess a prime example of a GPL project that was re-licensed is ssh. ssh1 is still being developed under the original GPL release license. However, the new ssh2 was rereleased under a proprietary license by DataFellows -- I am assuming as a direct result of the original author of the ssh1 selling the copyrights to DataFellows. What I wonder, at this point, is how much of the GPL contributed code to ssh1 was or could be incorporated in the ssh2 (or any other theoretical software package for that matter)? My assumption is that none of the GPL contributed code, that given to the original author of the package, could be used for a relicensing of the package. Imagine all of the contributing authors who would be out of the benefit or profit of relicensing the software, because they, in fact, are authors -- correct? Are their rights compromised at this point?
What I COULD understand is that if someone were to take a GPL project and build an additional module, which was proprietarily licensed, and sell that. This itself may be beneficial to all parties involved. The original authors retain their rights and the new author has benefited from using a GPL software from which to build his/her own additions from.
...and I will supply the munitions for this honorable crusader. But we would also have to go further than just getting rid of Leo. We'd have to place Lucus through years of intensive psycho-therapy!