| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Posted Feb 1, 2008 4:17 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246)In reply to: Revocable GPL (Groklaw) by ncm Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)
What part of "automatically" do you not understand? It requires no action on the part of the original author. By issuing the code under the GPL the first time, they have stated intent to extend the license automatically to all others who receive a GPL'd copy of the code. Sure, the author can decide to stop giving copies himself or herself. Big deal. Anyone else can give a copy and know that the author's original promise, built into the GPL license, still holds. All recipients will receive that copy under the GPL with all rights granted automatically as per the terms of the license.
(Log in to post comments)
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 5:05 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The above mode of argument has a name. It's called "begging the question". At the core, its pattern is "Assuming (1) I'm right, then (2) ... (n) therefore I'm right." You cannot reason about how the law will treat a license, a licensor, and licensees based solely on the text of the license. The law determines much of the meaning. The copyright holder has rights under the law that aren't stated in the license, and that may override what is stated in the license. That's the topic under discussion. If you haven't got that far, you haven't got anywhere. The problem is that the law isn't clear. You can wish all you like that the law were both clear and agreeable with your prejudice, but the facts are otherwise.
|
|
||||||||||||