Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Freddie C. <fca...@sd...>]

> Nathan Kurz wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Barry wrote:
>>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>> First, a disclaimer.  I am not a lawyer.  I am not even an expert.
>> But I do feel like I do have a pretty good grasp on copyright law
>> and the GPL, at least as interpreted in the United States.

>> IMHO, both of you are right on certain points:

>> 1) If you own a piece of code, you can relicense it however you
>> want. The GPL is a license to users, and as such grants rights where
>>  there once were none.  It does not reduce the owner's rights that
>> already exist.  The 'code' in the abstract is not subject to
>> copyright or the GPL, instead the particular released version is. If
>> the owner wants to make a new version and release it under a
>> different license, this is fine and good.  It does not affect the
>> instantiations already released under the GPL.

> I was with you until the last sentence. The GPL absolutely *does*
> impose limitation on the copyright owner. In particular, all
> *derivative* works *must* be GPL'd. This is the essence of GPL. There
> is no escaping it

Wrong.  Derivative works are those created by *others*.  The original
coders are *not* subject to the license they choose when they
*release* the code.

--=20
Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP        Helpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73             (250) 377-HELP [377-4357]
fc...@sd...               hel...@sd...