Re: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup

[Sriram Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>]

So, let me get this straight.  You're position is that by assigning 
copyright to a single entity that entity; be it whomever, can relicense
to the code as propriety or something non-GPL correct?

Do you believe that they can do this despite a legal agreement that the
code will be licensed as free software in addition to proprietary?
A legal agreement is binding.  An entity is obligated by law to follow
through.

I'm not seeing where the license is being circumvented.  The only reason
I can see you saying that is that you're being a purist and do not want
any proprietary forks associated the original GPL'd codebase regardless
of whether the code is also GPL'd as well.  Is that your position?

sri

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 08:32:29PM +0100, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 21:24 +0200, Christoffer Olsen wrote:
> > I don't want to be the one saying it, but; chill down the tone, please.
> 
> How can I chill down when:
> 
> > Although, there must also be an understanding that the GPL and the
> > copyright assignment aren't unrelated as such, since Novell will release
> > the transfered software under the GPL _and_ any licence they wish.
> 
> This is a lie, what you're spreading. It is very likely unintentional,
> but nevertheless a lie. There's no "simultaneously", this is not even
> dual licensing.
> 
> -- 
> + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
> + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
> | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
> + So let's do it...?
> 
> Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
> See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html



> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list


--