You are free to keep discussing this ad-infinitum. But I really think that this discussion is not adding anything new. It seems the same old controversy that is beyond GCC. And it is getting confusing, hard to follow, and at the end, all your effort will be lost in the archives and help no one.
Cheers, Manuel. On 26 April 2010 14:22, Richard Kenner <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >> If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the >> software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights? > > Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not "re-LICENSE") the > software and nothing else. Note that I changed "right" to "permission". > The owner of the software (the copyright holder) has given you specific > permissions to do certain things with the software. Re-distributing it is > one of them. But you're not the OWNER of the software. > > You're also not re-LICENSING the software. If I write some software and > apply the GPL to it and you get a copy, you have my permission to > redistribute that software to a third person. But the license that the > third person receives is from ME, not you. If a person you give it to > violates the GPL (e.g., by giving somebody a binary copy and refusing to > give them the sources), that person has violated a license with ME and only > *I* can persue it legally. > >> Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see >> why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared >> free. > > If they made it NON-FREE! See above. >
