🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <1iindhINNfu5@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>>The rest of your argument falls apart because you seem to be under
>>the impression that I slap the GPL onto my work, I have taken rights
>>away from myself.  I have not.  As the owner of the work, I can make
>>another copy with a different copyright agreement attached.

In article <1993Jan8.212814.21601@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>As I pointed out in another article, you can't.

Legally you can.  Practically, there may be some difficulties.

>If you try making another copy with a different copyright agreement attached,
>or even another _almost_ copy, or even another program which is mostly, but
>not totally, different, all any would-be pirate has to do is say "whoops, you
>used some lines of code from a GPL program in that, so the whole thing is
>under the GPL".  How are you going to prove you took the code from a common
>(non-GPL) source, instead of copying from the GPL to the non-GPL program?

You're assuming that the alternate licensing would be an X or Tcl/Tk
type license.  And I agree, if you did so exactly your scenario would
result.  But if the alternate licensing were to give a specific company
the right to make a proprietary product based on the code, no such result
would happen.

The idea is that this kind of thing would change "no one can make a
'hoarded' product based on my code" to "no one but company XYZ can".
This kind of thing is enforceable.  It's against the spirit of the
GPL, but the author of GhostScript has indicated that he plans to do
precisely this.




--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu