| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Alternate RealitiesAlternate RealitiesPosted Jan 29, 2008 23:52 UTC (Tue) by grantingram (subscriber, #18390)In reply to: Revocable GPL (Groklaw) by ncm Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)
In your world where you can't rely on the license to describe the license for the code, how do you work out what the license is? If you are running a server offering software for download how often should you check to see if the authors have changed their minds? Daily? Hourly? We shall just have to agree to disagree on this one.. (Log in to post comments)
Alternate Realities Posted Jan 30, 2008 2:47 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] If you're ultimately scrupulous, you check before you put the code on your server. If you're practical, you just see if it's one of the packages that has been retracted, and see if you got a copy before that happened. If it is one, but you got in under the wire, you just change the license text you distribute with the package. If is is one, but you missed the boat, then you don't post it. Maybe you post a download-patch-build script that gets it from somebody who (still) has the right to distribute.
Alternate Realities Posted Jan 30, 2008 10:57 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] 'Somebody who still has the right to distribute'... however, they only have the right to distribute the work under the GPL - which explicitly says that you must distribute the work giving the recipient all the rights that you have. In your scenario, where person A 'still' has the right to distribute the software to person B but B does not have the right to distribute it further, the consequence is that A cannot distribute the software at all, since he cannot do so in compliance with the GPL.
|
|
||||||||||||