Subject: Re: Another dumb GPL question
From: Frank Hecker <frank@collab.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:02:33 -0400

"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> >>>>> "Frank" == Frank Hecker <frank@collab.net> writes:
> 
>     Frank> However IMO that does _not_ mean that the code in A(n) must
>     Frank> be distributed _only_ under GPL terms. In other words,
>     Frank> there may be some n for which some or even all of the code
>     Frank> in A(n) could be distributed under proprietary terms (or in
>     Frank> general, non-GPL terms) in addition to being distributed
>     Frank> under GPL terms.
> 
> If the GNU GPL is the only public license in the chain, this is _not_
> a function of n!  This is a function of getting all the relevant
> authors together in one room to agree that their code is available
> under the terms desired.  That's basically what you said, except that
> by some magic your future contributors were _all_ dual-licensing.  How
> likely is that?  Especially if the GPL-only maintainer is active?

Well, that was my point: that the GPL-only maintainer needed to remain
active in development of the program, and recruit like-minded others to
the cause. My hypothetical conclusion was based on a scenario where
there was only one (or at most a few) contributors after the program was
released, and those contributors all had an incentive to release their
code under other licenses than the GPL.

Frank
-- 
Frank Hecker            work: http://www.collab.net/
frank@collab.net        home: http://www.hecker.org/