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]

Reply via email to