From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jul 3 11:57:45 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A39437B401 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97] ident=root) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #6) id 15HVMe-000Hzu-00; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 19:57:36 +0100 Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f63IvXX42507; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 19:57:33 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 19:57:32 +0100 From: j mckitrick To: Wes Peters Cc: Wes Peters , Rahul Siddharthan , Giorgos Keramidas , Dirk Myers , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <20010703195732.A42423@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702180222.A2667@hades.hell.gr> <20010702161055.A18543@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702172448.I4896@lpt.ens.fr> <3B41F0E4.B55E6937@softweyr.com> <20010703172216.F39318@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010703.12235600@star.dobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20010703.12235600@star.dobox.com>; from wes@dobox.com on Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:23:56PM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG | > Does this mean the existing code does or does NOT continue to be under | the | > terms of the original license before it was changed? | | You can only change the license terms if all parties agree. You seem to | be completely and utterly misunderstanding the entire conversation here. I think I know what threw me off. It was the whole concept of why the FSF wants to be copyright holder. IIUC *now*, this is to make sure no one changes the license from the GPL, correct? Since there are no other copyright owners in this case, this is a given. FSF code will always remain under the GPL license, then. Isn't one of the arguments of the GPL that the author *could* make their GPL code available under separate license for proprietary use? | (please forgive any formatting bogons, I'm trying out a new mailer.) Which one? Jonathon -- Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message