Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...>]

Barry wrote:

>> and thus it can be licensed in any way he (or the company) choose to 
>> license it, including a non-Open Source license.
>
>
> Assuming the copyright is held by Jamie, this is true only to a point.
>

Nom it's true 100%.

> GPL'd code can not be "un-GPL'd". You can attach a dual license to it, 
> but only within the constraints of GPL. In general, this mean that the 
> license must not be *more restrictive* then GPL.



GPL is only relevant to the non-copyright-holder.

*Licenses* do not affect the right of the copyright holder.

> Look at it this way please: If you are writing code to a GPL code base 
> (which I am sure you agree you are), then any derivative works are 
> GPLd by the definition of GPL.


Something written by the copyright holder is not a derivative work.  A 
derivative work is one written by another party using the copyright work.

>> 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.  
>
>
>
> 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,


The GPL very clearly states what people who use the code under the GPL 
can do to it.  This does not apply to the oener because the owner does 
not need to be granted a license.

A license aplies not only to the code, but to the speficic people who 
have to be licensed.  no license required -- no GPL effect.

> Not "free as in beer", but it does create an obligation to make it 
> "free as in speech" forever.


ONLY to people who mult be licensed to use it.


> The FSF  is the definitive place to start with licensing issues. Look 
> at http://www.fsf.org/fsf/licensing for example. Note that below there 
> it states: "Members of the Free Software community are encouraged to 
> consult with the FSF regarding licensing issues."


You don't ask a Catholic about the authority of the Pope.  You ask a 
scholar of religion.