---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A46F39D0226; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:35:59 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <8.00CC0818@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 3:32:49 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 3793 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:32:43 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 2738; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:30:42 -0500 Received: from smtp-out2.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.12] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:30:42 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by smtp-out2.xs4all.nl Received: from PAARD (a213-84-20-53.adsl.xs4all.nl [213.84.20.53]) by smtp-out2.xs4all.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0S8Ui4Y052676 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:30:44 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Message-ID: <001a01c3e579$06318ce0$0b00a8c0@PAARD> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:30:44 +0100 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Wouter van Ooijen Organization: Van Ooijen Technische Informatica Subject: Re: SCO lobbying Congress about Linux To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <19A86815-5160-11D8-9E8E-000A95E5DF26@mac.com> Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856054 > As an interesting question, can the AUTHOR of code that was > released under GPL ever change the license terms? As in "I > want to make this completely PD now", or perhaps "I made a big > set of improvements and I think I can sell it now as proprietary > code"? The latter seems reasonably doable, assuming that the > basis of the improved code all belongs to the author (doesn't > contain any fed-back improvements from others.) The former > seems more problematic... The author has and retains full copyright so he can do whatever he wants, except 'revoking' the already given license. The enforcing of (L)GPL and similar licenses *depend* on the fact that the author has the copyright: the GPL is just an permit, given by the author, to use the code under certain conditions. Outside those conditions the authors copyright forbids you to use the code. So IMHO if a (L)GPL will ever be in court it will be introduced by the user of the code, who will try to argue that he is within the license. The author will just excercise his copyright and leave it up to the user to prove he acted within the exception (the (L)GPL). Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics .