Subject: Re: EROS license
From: Ian Lance Taylor <>
Date: 27 Jun 1999 22:52:36 -0400

   From: Russell Nelson <>
   Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:35:19 -0400 (EDT)

   Ian Lance Taylor writes:
    >    From: Russell Nelson <>
    >    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.

Somehow I feel that ``proprietary fork'' does not carry the desired
connotations, particularly in cases (unlike the one I described) in
which the maintainer of the free sources makes the proprietary

I suppose I'll give it a try.

Does anybody else have a better suggestion?