🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.230129.19091@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
[ argument about whether the owner of a program can make multiple copies
  with different copyright and license agreements elided ]

>That depends on whether the license attaches to the program type or any
>individual token thereof.  I assume that the former is the case, as the
>latter does not seem to make any sense.  

Mikhail, regardless of what you *think* the GPL intends, that's not what it
actually says or implies.  The GPL can't supercede an owner's rights in
this fashion.  The law doesn't permit that.

Software authors can and *do* distribute identical versions of their
programs with different licensing terms (including the GPL), and it's
perfectly legitimate.

I've become confused about exactly what you mean when you speak of
ownership.  Lately I've come to believe you are referring to property in
some philosophical sense, not in a legal one, because legally we do not own
any piece of software for which no explicit and written copyright
assignment has been made.  I would appreciate it if you would clarify.