> They can still get the GPLed code that you wrote, from a different source - the FOSS version of it from that same company selling the proprietary version, or from you, or from a fork that is 100% FOSS, etc. The GPL precisely makes that possible.
Perhaps they could get it somewhere else (assuming they even know that they can, and that it is still available somewhere else), but that only addresses some of the freedoms that the GPL gives, non copyleft covered ones. You are not addressing all of the freedoms, yet you claim you that they can all be addressed. I am saying "you cannot get B, C, and D", and you keep replying: "yes you can, you can get A!"
>> But, if someone wants their code to be GPL, but *doesn't* mind additional uses of it, then they would be fine with copyright assignment.
> As I already explained, it's useful for switching FOSS licenses. For example, it is currently essentially impossible to switch the Linux kernel to GPL3 from GPL2. I think FOSS communities need to change licenses sometimes, and copyright assignment makes that possible.
I tought that you were making a blanket statement about not minding any kind of additonal uses. Yes, for some very specific additional uses, not ones left to the discretion of the assignee, I can see how this will likely seem useful to some.
> I see the validity in your position too. I just happen to disagree. I hope you feel the same way.
No, not at all. I am not judging your position ethically, I am judging it logically, and I am claiming that it is simply not valid (the position about all the GPL freedoms being preserved).