[OT] Must the copyright owner release GPLv3 derivative works?

[Mick Semb Wever]

> That's confused.  If it owns the copyright, it doesn't make sense to
> licence it to itself. 

I understand that now. I was previously unclear what restrictions the 
published license had over the originator or copyright holder.

>> This customer maintains copyright on module D. And/Or this customer
>> keeps the source code to module D private.
> 
> This isn't the scenario described above, as the third party only has
> access under one of the licences.  

That's not true. The third party has access to the propriety license, and 
say would be using it so to keep derivative works private, but they along 
with everybody else has access to the GPL. 

Say for example the third party has a module E that they want to release 
also as GPL, but the propriety license restricts it, could they still do 
so against the GPL versions of modules A, B, and C?
Would the the propriety license require a clause to explicitly state this 
was possible?

~mck

ps does fsf have any official objection to dual-licenses?
the case that i'm interested in, and the example that i'm using, is not 
so much about removing the user's freedoms under the propriety license 
but offering customers the opportunity to write derivative works they 
wish to remain private and not to distribute (in binary form or source).
The LGPL does not work because we do not wish customers/competitors to 
write and distribute propriety derivative works.

-- 
"Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before." Mae West
Homepage - www.wever.org | Sesam Search Engine - www.sesam.no