Re: Extending/Redesigning GPL code into LGPL lib: possible?

[zapro]

John Hasler wrote:
> zapro writes:
> If you are the sole copyright owner, of course.  You can distribute your
> work under any terms you wish.  The terms under which you have previously
> distributed it are irrelevant.  If you are not the sole copyright owner you
> must get the agreement of all the other owners.

I see, thanks John. Yes I am the sole copyright owner. I also found
this very clear Licensing howto by esr:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#changing

stating the same things you said.

> > Going beyond my specific problem, I guess I am confused by the concept of
> > "different": to what extent two pieces of code can be considered
> > different in order to be published with at least "similar" licenses (such
> > as the GPL / LGPL), also provided the author is the same?
>
> I am confused by your question.

Sorry about that. I guess the question derived from me not knowing what
exactly copyright grants me, and to (wrongly) consider the GPL as a
contract.

> The fact that a work has been distributed
> under the GPL is no bar to its copyright owner distributing it under other
> terms.  The license is a unilateral grant from you to others.  It does not
> bind you in any way.

Well, the main concern behind my doubts is (or was) the following:

If I had distributed v1.0 of my code under GPL, that grants other users
the rights to modify, redistribute it and republish it under the same
terms. If I understand well, it's like I am not the owner of the code:
I just wrote it. So these rights can't just be taken back for v1.0:
other people could have made useful programs with it, and republished
it. However, as you said, if I make v1.01, then I can change the
license, even making it proprietary. Is this correct?