From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Feb 18 01:56:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA22971 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:56:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA22964 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id BAA05064; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:57:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702180957.BAA05064@root.com> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Snob Art Genre cc: "David O'Brien" , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:34:29 PST." From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:57:19 -0800 Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> Say someone has written fooquix and from version 0.01 to 0.49 it was >> GPL'ed. Then they decided they wanted to make some $$$ from it. So the >> next release (say 0.50) was binary only. Now obiviously 0.50 is derived >> work based on the GPL'ed code of 0.49. >> >> Is this allowable, or once software is under GLP it stays there? > >It's allowable, because you, as the author of the GPL'd code, have the >right to release yourself from the GPL, I believe. Suppose that 20 other people contributed patches to it during the time it was under GPL? ...you'd have to get written permission from all of those people before you could put a different copyright on it. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project