[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> > Now consider a similar license with one change: only the original >> > developer may release under a proprietary license. Such a change >> > reduces the number of people who can take the software proprietary. It >> > seems like if the case above is a Free license, then this one would be >> > as well, and would actually be preferable. >> >> This is not Free. It gives these grants: >> >> 1) Distribute with source, passing this license along. >> >> 2) or, if you're Bob, under a proprietary license without source. >> >> Now I have only one grant of permission. I have to pass along 2, but >> I don't get to take advantage of it at all. > > Since it was specified that Bob holds the copyright, this licence is > equivalent > to the same licence without clause 2 at all.
No, it's more restrictive on me. Without the requirement that I add clause 2 to my modifications, Bob can't release *my* code in his proprietary version. Bob only holds the copyright on his original, not on my modifications. They are a derivative work of his original, so both he and I have copyright interests in them. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
