Subject: Re: EROS license
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:35:19 -0400 (EDT)

Ian Lance Taylor writes:
 >    From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
 >    Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
 > 
 >    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.
 > 
 > Evidently, though, you felt the need to point out the impossibility of
 > the second scenario.  Can you recommend some other short phrase we can
 > use to describe the first scenario I outlined in order to avoid this
 > sort of confusion?

We already have a perfectly usable word for this, coined, I believe,
by John Gilmore: fork.  In this case, it's a proprietary fork.

-- 
-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!