Peter Galbavy wrote:
> pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
>
>> I'm probably just being alarmist, but think about some IP lawyer
>> buying up
>> the entity that owns the GPL code, and suing end user's of PostgreSQL.
>
>
> You cannot retrospectively change the terms of a license unless the
> licensee agrees to it. If something is released GPL, then the GPL
> applies to that code and subsequent derivatives - that's the point of
> the GPL.
>
> The new "owner" may change the terms of a license for new
> distributions of a package, assuming they actually own all the IP, and
> this is what I understand is the SCO issue. SCO claim that code that
> was distributed was done so without permission.
>
> For an opposite effect, see the origins of the OpenSSH project; to
> summarise, folks found than an older version of a (at that time)
> vaguely licensed ssh was BSD licensed ans it was used as a base for a
> new product - namely OpenSSH.
>
The code in question is not covered by the GPL, IIRC, which makes this
somewhat moot. The README that comes with it says:
Terms of Use
------------
This software is provided "as is", without any guarantee made
as to its suitability or fitness for any particular use. It may
contain bugs, so use of this tool is at your own risk. We take
no responsilbity for any damage that may unintentionally be caused
through its use.
You may not distribute this tool without the express written
permission of Mark Russinovich.
cheers
andrew
