🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan8.212814.21601@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

   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.

   As I pointed out in another article, you can't.

   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? 

If YOU own the program, you can do whatever you want.  The copyright
law is really quite clear, and no assignment of particular rights
(which is what the GPL is) can restrict the owner without explicitly
saying so, and the GPL doesn't, which is intentional.

--
Michael I. Bushnell      |     Watch, for you do not know when the master of 
+1 617 625 4518 (H)     -+-    the house will come, in the evening, or at
+1 617 253 8568 (W)      |     midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning, 
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.