>     GPL is based on copyright. The copyright holder has ALL the rights, and
>     may assign them however they wish. If they choose to offer it as GPL,
>     then of course they are bound by that (being their own agreement by
>     their own choice), but that *doesn't* mean they can't also license it
>     other ways.
>
>
>    Exactly.  The GPL is an agreement with the public, and once it is
> made it is not the right of the originator to change that.  This is a
> situation that has come up repeatedly in the past few years.  Recently I
> have been dealing with a project called JasperReports which is a Java
> based report engine similar to Crystal Reports.
>
>     1) At some point in history the original designer released the code
> under the GPL.
>     2) Then reports indicate that he ceded his copyrights to the company
> Japser Reports, Inc.( or somesuch name ).
>     3) Now JasperReports has not technically changed the license, but
> they feel that they can *grant the right to invalidate GPL terms*.  This
> right is bought as part of a service package.
>
>   In my estimation the problem began at step 2.  The author doesn't have
> any rights over the code if he released it as GPL at step 1.  It wasn't
> his to sell or to alter in any way, it was granted to the public.  The
> company _does not have the right to change the terms of the GPL_
> regardless of the codes origin or their investment in its development.

Releasing code under the GPL is the not the same as releasing under the
Public Domain.  Under the GPL the original author still owns the
copyright for the code released.  He is LICENSING it to others to use
under the restrictions given in the GPL.  If he then sells the code to a
company, they now own the copyright to it.  They can't prevent others
from taking the copies that they have obtained under the GPL from
redistributing, but they can stop licensing the copy they have under the
GPL and release a new version under a different license.