On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 18:05:08 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 07:59:40AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:57:15PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Were they the authors of that codebase, or did the authors > > > of that codebase pass copyright to them? You say "copyright > > > holders", so I assumed one of those must be true. > > > > They were not the sole source of the code, if that's what > > you're getting at. > > Then they aren't the total collection of copyright > holders. Right.
My impression from reading Joerg Schilling's posts to the Debian-hosted cdwrite lists is that the original author has the sole authority to decide on the license of any future or parallel versions of her software. This is his justification for the existence of the free-beer binary-only DVD recording tool cdrecord-prodvd. His arguments appear to be based on the difference between American and German law. The GPL, as everyone knows, is the FSF's attempt to stand American copyright law on its head. So the question probably is, whether the GPL (like the obnoxious DMCA) can be invalidated by local law. Am I misunderstanding the difference by licenses and the law in general? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
