Re: [boost] Previously GPL'd Code

From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-30 15:28:19

At 01:10 PM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>Greg Colvin <Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> At 08:30 AM 1/30/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>>"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Glenn --
>>>>
>>>> Since this mail seems to have been buried in the usual wave of
>>>> boost mail, I'll take a stab at it so you at least get a response - FWIW...
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>> A licensing question for everyone:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there any problem with submitting, for possible inclusion in
>>>>> Boost, a library that was previously released under the GNU GPL?
>>>>> The submission would, in its new incarnation, be covered by a
>>>>> license that meets the Boost criteria. It would be submitted by
>>>>> the original copyright holders and would include no modifications
>>>>> made by others who received the library under the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> Since the original copyright holders are effectively changing the terms
>>>> I don't see why this would present a problem -- they are certainly free
>>>> to change the terms.
>>>
>>>I have not answered because IANAL, so I have no clue whether this is
>>>legally sound or not.
>>
>> I'm no lawyer either, but it's not unusual for the owners
>> of code to release it under both GPL and another license.
>> The other license is usually more restrictive, but I can't
>> see that it matters.
>
>If it was ever accepted by GNU, I think the authors had to sign it
>over to the FSF.  Did they?  Does that matter?  I don't know the
>answers.

If they signed it over they don't own it any more.