| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Posted Jan 30, 2008 2:18 UTC (Wed) by njs (subscriber, #40338)In reply to: Revocable GPL (Groklaw) by ncm Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)
I am unconvinced that this is the FSF's reasoning. I've never heard anyone associated with the FSF mention it -- indeed, they give other reasons[1] -- and the FSF accepts either a copyright assignment *or* a disclaimer of copyright interest/public domain assignment. The latter is hardly *less* problematic than the GPL vis a vis revocability and other such ugly corners of the law. Maybe they *should* be worried about the scenario you raise, but are they? [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
(Log in to post comments)
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 3:42 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The FSF has very scrupulously never addressed the topic in public at all, to my knowledge. Eben Moglen didn't reply to my questions on the topic. My opinion is that it will take explicit legislation before we can have any clarity on the subject. In the meantime, we only need to worry about a few specific packages that have been retracted, and even there we can limit our actions to worrying. If the copyright owner starts bothering people, we have a known workaround. In Linux, we might find a driver must be pulled out, and maybe distributed separately.
|
|
||||||||||||