home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4355 talk.philosophy.misc:3249 misc.legal:22297
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!burley
- From: burley@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Message-ID: <BURLEY.93Jan9172713@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- Date: 10 Jan 93 01:27:13 GMT
- References: <1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu> <1iindhINNfu5@agate.berkeley.edu>
- <1993Jan7.230129.19091@husc3.harvard.edu>
- <1imlr5INN2tu@early-bird.think.com>
- Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
- Lines: 24
- NNTP-Posting-Host: apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu
- In-reply-to: barmar@think.com's message of 9 Jan 1993 14:01:09 GMT
-
- In article <1imlr5INN2tu@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
-
- The simple way to avoid the GPL "virus" problem on your own work is to
- apply the GPL to the copy rather than the original, i.e. write a program
- ^^^^
- and make it proprietary, make a copy of it (as the owner, you have this
- ^^^^
- right), and slap the GPL on this copy. Derivatives of the copy must
- ^^^^ ^^^^
- inherit the GPL, but derivatives of the original can be subject to any
- terms you wish.
-
- As I posted in response to a mib posting, I suggest that instead of "copy"
- you really mean "derivate work" [based on the original].
-
- And the fact that a derivative work is, in this case, identical to the
- original, and hence not truly derivative, shows the fallacy of believing
- that one loses the copyright to one's own work by releasing it under the
- GPL. You lose only the ability to restrict recipients of the GPL-protected
- version so they can't share copies with their neighbors.
- --
-
- James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
- Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) lpf@uunet.uu.net
-