At 02:50 PM 07/20/2000 -0400, you wrote:

>At 12:25 PM 7/20/00 -0600, Tim Uckun wrote:
> >
> >
> >This seems weird to me. I seriously doubt that once a code is GPLed it can
> >be un GPLed. The purpose of GPL is to prevent just that. I suppose they
> >could have two forks for the code base a pre and a post GPL and they hope
> >to sell the pre GPL fork but this seems like a dicey business plan.
> >
>
>The more interesting question is what they do about user contributions
>to the source code. A patch to a GPL project is automatically GPLed.
>If they apply the patch to non-GPL tree, it instantly falls under
>GPL itself.

Very true. If I contributed code to a GPLed product I certainly would not
want it to be applied to proprietary code but it bring about an interesting
question. How would I know if someone hijacked my code? Perhaps a more
interesting question is weather or not all these implied consent contracts
are even valid in the first place. I guess congress is about the legitimize
the shrink wrap license but it sure would be interesting to hear how the
courts would weigh in on this. After all nobody has signed anything.


:wq
Tim Uckun
Due Diligence Inc. http://www.diligence.com/ Americas Background
Investigation Expert.
If your company isn't doing background checks, maybe you haven't considered
the risks of a bad hire.