[sword-devel] Closed source exploitation of open source works (a GPL loophole)

[David Trotz (Integrity Online)]

> What's our answer to this loophole in the GPL?  Do we find a more
> restrictive license than GPL under which to release ActiveDiatheke (and
> probably Sword in general since anyone could make a similar component and
> license under GPL, allowing close source use)?  We've considered switching
> to LGPL, so should we just ignore this issue since it meshes just fine
>with the intent behind LGPL.  Should we allow ActiveDiatheke (and
>similar) to go
> under GPL and serve as a the only means for closed source use rather than
> putting Sword under LGPL?

Can you relicense a GPL program under anything other than GPL? I though the
GPL insured everyone (programmers and end users alike) that their "freedoms"
could not be revoked. Another license may take these freedoms away,
therefore in vioation of the GPL. Just a question, I am new to the GPL. I
have read it and re-read it, but I still don't always get what it is saying.
There is an article in "Open" magazine this month about the GPL license. I
found it to be very interesting.

> Should I just pretend I didn't write it and delete it from my hard drive
>so that we don't have to deal with the issue at all? :)

LOL :)

BTW Anyone going to Linux World here in San Francisco, CA this year in
August?