Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:25:49PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: >>>Yes, this is what SUCKS about current copyright law. The presumption is >>>"All >>>rights reserved unless you have explicit permission". >> >>Somehow, I doubt you'd say that about a GPL-licensed package with one >>author who wants to grant a proprietary license to make money. The only >>difference between this situation and that one is that we like the >>license change in one of them. :) > > I assume you mean "with many authors, one of which wants to ...", and > not "with only one author, who wants to ...". I don't think most > people find offensive the notion of a sole copyright holder of a GPL- > licensed work granting proprietary licenses for a fee.
That's exactly what I meant; I just used a bad phrasing of the statement. What I meant was "a GPL-licensed package (no statement about the total number of authors), with one author who wants to ..."; in retrospect, the interpretation "a GPL-licensed package with (only) one author" is far more natural given the way I stated it. Thanks for the correction. I certainly don't find the other interpretation offensive; on the contrary, it seems like a highly successful business model for Free Software. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
