Subject: Re: Licensing question
From: jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:09:58 +1000

 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:09:58 +1000
On 11/10/05, David Ryan <david@livemedia.com.au> wrote:

thanks for comfirming that for me, however..as always, there's one
more question..

:)

at the end you said;

>Many projects will request that copyright for "Code C" be
> assigned back to the initial developer so they have more freedom to
> relicense as needed.

How does that work? Surely that defeats the purpose of L/GPL?

Actually.. I think I just worked it out..

If I "let" someone contribute to my "Code A", I can request (in truth
*demand*) that the copyright remains mine, and later on re-release it
with a different licence.

However..

if i take "Code B" (which is LGPL'd) and merge it with "Code A"...
THEN i can't change the licence?



actually..im still a bit confused...because...

at any time before changing my licence on Code A from LGPL to Evil
Licence 2006, anyone can take my (or should I say our) LGPL code and
"keep" it, edit it, and re-release it (as LGPL code)...which means...

*IF* I wanted to change my licence, there would realistically have to
be a large difference in code between changing from LGPL to whatever.

I hope it doesnt seem like I'm talking to myself!


I'm still happy with all of that, just trying to clarify it.

Lawyers? Who needs em? ;)