Timeline for So the GPL doesn't restrict the creator of the software in any way?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2023 at 3:56 | history | edited | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 155 characters in body
|
| Jul 1, 2023 at 3:44 | history | edited | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 239 characters in body
|
| Jul 1, 2023 at 3:41 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @Pacerier It's not quite the section you quoted, but I think you object to my language that, "Allowing other people to use the work via a license in no way lessens the author's copyright" which seems in line with your objection: exclusive licenses do indeed limit this. I'm happy to circumscribe this statement to concern non-exclusive licenses only. | |
| Jul 1, 2023 at 2:56 | comment | added | Pacerier | @apsillers, re "on the contrary, the author's copyright is what makes the license possible and necessary"; Nope, not necessary. Consider the case where you give an exclusive license, then you no longer retain full rights of your copyright. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 18:58 | history | edited | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 438 characters in body
|
| Nov 12, 2015 at 21:44 | comment | added | vic | Thank you once more, I really learned something here. If I could, I would upvote your answer even further. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 21:39 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @vic The only difference between the capabilities of a CLA and CTA is that actual copyright ownership is required to take legal enforcement action. All other rights (other than the right to take legal action) can be communicated by a CLA. Regarding your fork question: so long as copyright law recognizes the fork as a derivative of the original (which it may do even when no original code remains), the fork must follow the rules of whatever license it derives its right to exist (so if the original project is GPL-licensed, it must follow the GPL). | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 20:50 | vote | accept | vic | ||
| Nov 12, 2015 at 20:49 | comment | added | vic | Great, thanks. I assume that large dual license projects would rather use a CTA than a CLA? And I further assume that unless the copyright owner is in fact the providing most of the improvements in the long term, this is where it would come to a fork (with different copyright rules for new code)? Which brings me to another question: a fork, no matter how much better it has become than the original, can never again be put under another license and thus could not be closed because it's a derivative of a GPL app. Right? | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 20:34 | comment | added | apsillers♦ | @vic Edited to address your question as you originally intended it. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 20:34 | history | edited | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 447 characters in body
|
| Nov 12, 2015 at 20:27 | comment | added | vic | Thanks, great answer. I may not have been clear about question 4. I meant: since we say that the owner can do with his code as he pleases, what about contributions that were fully incorporated into the code and later built-upon? Concretely, how do dual licens projects avoid that the commercial code base gets worse because it cannot profit from GPL code? Or maybe I misunderstand something. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 20:20 | history | edited | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 272 characters in body
|
| Nov 12, 2015 at 20:14 | history | answered | apsillers♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |