Subject: Re: EROS license
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:50:24 -0400 (EDT)

Crispin Cowan writes:
 > I don't buy that.  He's essentially articulating why he's more interested in
 > contributing to a GPL-licensed project than to a project that gives the original
 > author special rights.  As a contributor, that's his choice.

Of course.  People can choose all sorts of things, sensible or not.
I'm trying to convince Ian (and presumably others) that they benefit
from encouraging authors to give up most of their proprietary rights
in return for the ability to dual-license.

 > I think that the whole discussion VERY clearly shows that GPL-licensed projects
 > have the advantage of more readily attracting contributions, while other
 > licenses have the advantage of more readily allowing the original author to take
 > the project proprietary for financial gain.  None of this should be surprising,
 > but it apparently needs to be re-stated.

My understanding does not match your re-statement of it.  The author
of a GPL-licensed project has the option of licensing the code under
another license.  That doesn't change the status of the GPL-licensed
version.  To "take the project proprietary" is not possible under US
Copyright law, and the whole Berne Convention for all I know.  Copy
rights cannot be retracted once granted.

Some authors request back-licensing for the purposes of
dual-licensing.  Others use a GPL-like license which requires it.
This is what Ian is objecting to.

-- 
-russ nelson <rn-sig@crynwr.com>  http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | can outdo them. Homeschool!