| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Posted Jan 29, 2008 10:43 UTC (Tue) by njs (subscriber, #40338)In reply to: Revocable GPL (Groklaw) by ncm Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)
> The key is that the copyright owner isn't bound by the license. The GPL expresses an intent to issue new licenses, but the owner can change that intent, and stop issuing new licenses. This is an intriguing and novel-to-me argument, but I have no idea whether I should be convinced or not -- there are, after all, plenty of other cases where one cannot legally renege on an agreement (like, all of contract law, for instance). *You* seem certain, and other posters not, but the argument isn't generating any insight in to the merits of either side, at least to me. Could you cite whatever case law, or whatever, convinced you that courts would be likely to accept this interpretation of the GPL?
(Log in to post comments)
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 20:17 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Sorry, I can't cite anything. A discussion of a related (but not identical!) topic on Advogato five years ago was also inconclusive: http://www.advogato.org/article/606.html The difference is that the previous discussion was about retracting distribution rights from current licenseholders, where this is about whether those rights necessarily extend to new recipients even if the owner says no.
|
|
||||||||||||