Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

quoted text
> [correct the subject] ;)

>

> Qua, 2007-04-11 C s 14:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:

>> [set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with

>> bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it]

>>

>> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:

>>> Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:

>>>> GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to

>>>> you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.

>>> This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL

>>> and generic copyright work.

>>>

>>> 	* Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they

>>> 	  keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company)

>>>

>>> 	* Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright

>>> 	  violation.

>> Did you actually read what I wrote, as the above two points where in my

>> text, but you deleted that from your reply. You might want to read the

>> snipped text too :) I actually made a difference between the original

>> copyright owner (who is allowed to do anything they like with the code)

>> and somebody adding their stuff, who can't relicense it. As for the

>> first 'point' you are trying to make, also covered in my text...

>

> What you also said is actually fully irrelevant, since I'm correcting

> one phrase which has TWO incorrect things, one of them a copyright

> violation. You can't dual-license other people's GPL'ed contributions.

Again, re-read what I wrote. Don't try to mingle my words as I never

wrote that, it was in one sentence yes, but the rest of the sentences

told a completely different story.
Good that I PGP sign my messages so that it is clear that I didn't write

what you think I wrote by stripping out the portions that also matter

and that without those portions the message is not mine.
Greets,

 Jeroen
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]