Re: luaproc

[Mark Meijer <meijer78@...>]

2009/2/20 Matthew Wild <mwild1@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Mark Meijer <meijer78@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/2/19 Alexandre Skyrme <askyrme@inf.puc-rio.br>:
>> On a side note, and not to be picky (I do hope the answer to my
>> question is yes in this particular case), but is GPL-ed software even
>> allowed to have that GPL license removed and replaced by a different
>> license?
>>
>
> GPL and other open-source licenses are copyright licenses.
> Traditionally copyright holders would put "You may not copy, re-sell,
> ... this work".
>
> GPL on the other hand turns this around. It is the copyright holder
> saying "I, the copyright holder, *permit* you to copy, re-sell, ... as
> long as...". Of course the copyright holder is not subject to this
> license, it is purely a way of stating how people are legally allowed
> to use his/her work. A copyright holder can release the code to the
> public under as may licenses as they please, even at the same time :)
>
> Hope this helps (and this gets a lot more complicated than I present
> it here, IANAL),

Sure enough, thanks. My doubts were simply because of the notion that
GPL pretty much allows you to do whatever you like, as long as others
remain similarly guaranteed of the same rights should you create
anything based on it. Replacing GPL with MIT essentially strips that
guarantee. I just wasn't sure whether or not the author him/herself
could "change his mind" after the fact, nor whether that would affect
any existing copies of the software "out there". All I know is that
GPL is in some regards a bit of an unusual license.

But the responses so far have solved it for me. Special cigar to David
Kastrup, for his clear and consise formulation ;)

Cheers,
Mark