Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > [correct the subject] ;) > > Qua, 2007-04-11 C s 14:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu: >> [set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with >> bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it] >> >> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >>> Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu: >>>> GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to >>>> you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects. >>> This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL >>> and generic copyright work. >>> >>> * Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they >>> keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company) >>> >>> * Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright >>> violation. >> Did you actually read what I wrote, as the above two points where in my >> text, but you deleted that from your reply. You might want to read the >> snipped text too :) I actually made a difference between the original >> copyright owner (who is allowed to do anything they like with the code) >> and somebody adding their stuff, who can't relicense it. As for the >> first 'point' you are trying to make, also covered in my text... > > What you also said is actually fully irrelevant, since I'm correcting > one phrase which has TWO incorrect things, one of them a copyright > violation. You can't dual-license other people's GPL'ed contributions.
Again, re-read what I wrote. Don't try to mingle my words as I never wrote that, it was in one sentence yes, but the rest of the sentences told a completely different story. Good that I PGP sign my messages so that it is clear that I didn't write what you think I wrote by stripping out the portions that also matter and that without those portions the message is not mine. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
