On Sat, May 20, 2000 at 10:15:45PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote: > At the risk of seeming to pick nits, this is not actually the effect > of the GPL. The author of a GPL work can license it to different > parties on different terms; only authors of derivative works are so > encumbered.
That's not so much a nit as a complete aside. [1] I was talking about what the GPL grants to recipients of the work. Copyright holders already have more rights than what the GPL (or any other license) grants. [2] If a work isn't being distributed under the GPL then obviously the GPL is irrelevant. -- Raul On 2000-05-19 at 22:27 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > However, the GPL tries to make sure that -- once copies of GPLed software > > are distributed -- the recipients of the software have as many rights as > > any other recipients of any other versions of that software. [That means > > no peculiar rules about how recipient c has to follow special procedures > > when modifying the version of the software received from recipient f, > > for instance.]
