Getting grubby with ZFS - GPLv2 or later legality
Posted Dec 17, 2010 22:45 UTC (Fri) by ccurtis
In reply to: Getting grubby with ZFS - GPLv2 or later legality
Parent article: Getting grubby with ZFS
Are you saying you believe the legal doctrines of ex post facto and grandfathering apply to the issue of a "GPLv2 or later" clause in a copyright license?
In effect, yes; insomuch that it, as a concept, seems a necessary prerequisite of a "meeting of the minds," applicable to any contract. Surely we agree that a contract can't be modified by a single party without the consent of the other.
[...] but a license is just a grant. [...] It is binding only on the licensor.
I assume you mean licensee. If not, I am simply incredibly confused about this whole law thing altogether.
The license is something that one of the parties to the contract gives the other, as one term of the contract.
Whether a license is granted on the terms of a contract, or whether one is bound to license terms by performing its conditions, it seems to me that there exists some form of contract, either expressed or implied.
My terminology may be all over the map and I may very confused about what law actually is, but it seems unfathomable to me that the law would allow a Heisenberg-esqe agreement where the supplier of a piece of software is bound to unspecified conditions based on the actions of the licensee. (Specifically in the sense that a licensee says, "Ooh, look at this or later clause. I'll take it under the 'vN' terms; now allow me free access to all your patents.")
The terms of a license may change, [...]
It doesn't work that way.[...]
True. I was thinking that licenses tend not to be granted in perpetuity. Software generally is, but licenses to other "IP" tend to be term-limited (such as a license to use a brand), with periodic renewal. At the point of renewal, of course, terms can change...
to post comments)