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

[John Hasler]

zapro writes:
> 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.

It's good to hear that Eric got it right :)

> 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.

You are the owner of the code.  You have granted recipients of copies
certain rights under the terms of the GPL.

> So these rights can't just be taken back for v1.0: other people could
> have made useful programs with it, and republished it.

You cannot revoke the rights you have granted to those people (without
cause).  However, releasing a copy under a different license does not
affect their rights.

> However, as you said, if I make v1.01, then I can change the license,
> even making it proprietary. Is this correct?

There is no need for a new version.  You could release the exact same work
simultaneously under the GPL and the Microsoft EULA, under the GPL first
and the EULA second, or the reverse.

Think of a license as being attached to the physical copies that you
distribute under it, not to the abstract concept of the "work".  Just
because you licensed a copy to me under the GPL does not preclude you from
licensing a copy to Isaac under closed-source terms, nor do the terms under
which you license a copy to him affect my rights in any way.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA