Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Nathan K. <na...@ve...>]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:24:23PM -0700, Barry wrote:
> Nathan Kurz wrote:
> >>>The GPL is a license.  A license dictates what folks who do not hold 
> >>>the copyright can do with code.  It does not have any bearing on what 
> >>>the holder of the copyright can do with the code.  
> >>>     
> >>>
> Incorrect conclusion , and answered in plain English on the FAQ on the 
> fsf.org site.
> 
> >>That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and 
> >>can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every 
> >>copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never 
> >>make it so,
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, Barry.  
> >
> 
> Read the info at fsf.org. I am correct.

If the FAQ you refer to is the one at
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.htm>, I see this:

 I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another
 license. Is this possible?

    The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other
    licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program
    can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One
    of them may be the GNU GPL.

    The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the
    copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the
    license that applies to your copy. 

 I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I
 would like to use the same code in non-free programs.

    To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but
    legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the
    copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various
    different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

 Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the
 developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?

    Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for
    others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer
    itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does,
    this is not a "violation" of the GPL.

    However, if the developer does something that would violate the
    GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral
    standing in the community. 

This agrees with my interpretation and with Joe's (ownership caveats
aside), but unless I'm misinterpreting you I think it contradicts what
you are saying.  Am I somehow misinterpreting what you are saying?

--nate