The X.Org Foundation Is Undecided About Mir

[pingufunkybeat]

If I license some code as GPL and then make a BSD licensed copy of it it still needs to abide by the terms of the GPL.

Absolutely 100% wrong.

Only the code you distributed under the terms of the GPL is covered by the GPL. If you distribute the same code under the terms of the BSD license, then that version will be under the BSD.

In fact, this happens all the time. A license cannot protect a creation from its creator. A license governs other people's use.

According to the terms of the GPL as a copyright holder you don't have rights to the code.

Any such license would be simply illegal and unenforceable and against every single copyright convention out there.

What is true is that OTHER people cannot relicense YOUR code, if they got it under the GPL. YOU can relicense it all you want, as long as you remain the copyright holder.

The actual code itself. Not the version or the name.

The actual code that you gave together with the license and which the third party received together with the license.

Not the copy sitting on your hard drive. You can do whatever you want with that, as long as you are the copyright holder.

[archibald]

According to the terms of the GPL as a copyright holder you don't have rights to the code.

Please provide a citation for this, as it runs contrary to every interpretation of the GPL that I have heard.

[archibald]

It doesnt matter what the copyright holder chose. If he chose to violate the gpl then it is still a violation.

If I license some code as GPL and then make a BSD licensed copy of it it still needs to abide by the terms of the GPL. It doesnt protect the copyright holder. Just the code.

If I am the sole author of a GPL application, I can change the license to something like the BSD license or a very restrictive license, since I am the copyright holder: it's my code so I can do what I want with it: I am the copyright holder so I can dictate the terms on which people can use my code. Since it the copyrighted material is owned by me, I can choose to offer it on difference terms if I choose to do so, but this doesn't change anything for somebody who has taken a copy of the GPL code; license changes aren't retroactive.

[duby229]

Again, as long as the code is legally yours you may relicense it. That will not affect the code that is already public under the GPL which will stay GPL, but you may make a proprietary version of the application as long as you own the rights to the code.

According to the terms of the GPL as a copyright holder you don't have rights to the code. It doesnt protect you. It protects the code. The actual code itself. Not the version or the name. Versioning has no relevance to what is licensed. Take v.0.01 licensed under the GPL. and version 0.02 licensed under the BSD. diff them and any thing that is the same is protected by the GPL. Why? Because the GPL protects the actual code. The only way around that is to replace the GPL protected code.

There are so many thousands of GPL violations today because the FSF still doesnt have the resources to start cracking down on these kinds of violations. There is more GPL code in closed products than original code I'm certain.

[duby229]

Yeah you can relicense your code, but any of it that is already protected by the GPL remains protected by it. The only way around that is to replace protected code. The GPL protects actual code. Not a version of the code. Not the name of the code. Not an idea of the code... But the actual code.... If you are using any code that can be shown as protected by the gpl then it is protected by it. Period. It doesnt matter what the copyright holder chose. If he chose to violate the gpl then it is still a violation.

If I license some code as GPL and then make a BSD licensed copy of it it still needs to abide by the terms of the GPL. It doesnt protect the copyright holder. Just the code.

[jayrulez]

Read the GPL man. You are definitely wrong. You can relicense your code, but any of it that is protected by the GPL must abide by its terms. It is stated clearly and beyond the shadow of doubt.

I have read the GPL. I've contributed to software under various licences and I've ensured that I've read and understood each licence before making any contributions. I've also seen this in practice. I know you really want to believe what you have said but that doesn't change facts and reality.

[pingufunkybeat]

As long as the terms of the GPL code base are abided by. You can't simply decide that the GPL doesnt apply to you.

Of course you can. It's your code.

Any code that was distributed under the GPL license stays under the GPL. But you are free to relicense your code however you want and distribute that however you want.

The author doesn't need to license his own code to himself. The license is for other people.

[Hamish Wilson]

Read the GPL man. You are definitely wrong. You can relicense your code, but any of it that is protected by the GPL must abide by its terms. It is stated clearly and beyond the shadow of doubt.

Again, as long as the code is legally yours you may relicense it. That will not affect the code that is already public under the GPL which will stay GPL, but you may make a proprietary version of the application as long as you own the rights to the code.

[Hamish Wilson]

EDIT: The copyright holder doesnt have any rights under the terms of the GPL. It doesnt protect them. It is a copyleft license.

Copyright or Copyleft, the owner of the code can choose to re-license the code however they see fit. How else can previously proprietary applications become free software ones? I think you have failed to understand how Copyright law works here.

[duby229]

I don't think I can be any clearer about this.

Please read the more elaborative answer to the question here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5...be-re-licensed

Please ensure you read thoroughly and understand each section.

Read the GPL man. You are definitely wrong. You can relicense your code, but any of it that is protected by the GPL must abide by its terms. It is stated clearly and beyond the shadow of doubt.