On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:24:17 -0700, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William Stein wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:44:41 -0700, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Definitely -- you are only allowed to relicense your work without >> >> the bug fixes. If I spend three weeks, say, fixing a bug in your >> >> GPL'd that is in SAGE, then implement the bug fix, you can't just >> >> take my hard work and relicense it to Microsoft say. You'll have >> >> to take the version without my bugfix. But remember that if you >> >> hadn't made the code available in the first place I would have >> >> never fixed the bug. >> >> >> >> --William >> > >> > Which means I am only allowed to distribute the defective version of >> my >> > software under another license. >> >> Well you can always continue to distribute the good version under >> whatever >> license you released your code under in the first place. What >> relicensing >> scenario do you envision? > > I developed my own license for software I write (currently only a crude > synthesizer has been released, but I also wrote a quite complex OpenGL > procedural texture generator, which I have yet to release). The license > I use applies additional restrictions that the GPL does not, with > regard to not using the code for anti-religious, terrorist, military, > slavery, spamming and other applications which conflict with my own > moral perspectives. In particular I forbid people involved in such > endeavours from even using my software. I believe the GPL does not make > all such restrictions.
You're right, the GPL makes no such restrictions. Also, SAGE won't include components with such restrictions either. > If for example, I modified my quadratic sieve in such a way as to make > it 100 times faster than the current best performing sieve out there, I > would not want it used by certain organisations without something in > return. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. > > The situation I envisage would be one where a particularly polished > version of some of my code, which had been derived from the original, > was rereleased by me, with the more restrictive license applied. > > I don't think someone can then come along and apply the same > modifications that I did to the GPL version and redistribute it under > that license. That's correct. They would be blatantly violating your copyright on the new improved version that you released, and you could sue for damages. > So I think such a relicensing would be a valid one, > though of questionable practical value, I suppose. I see your point. Thanks for the example. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
