| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Perpetual vs. irrevocablePerpetual vs. irrevocablePosted Oct 29, 2003 22:17 UTC (Wed) by bryn (guest, #1482)In reply to: Perpetual vs. irrevocable by StevenCole Parent article: SCO responds to IBM's counterclaims If I owned a perpetual motion machine, it could still have an "Off" switch. It just wouldn't come to a halt unless I pressed that switch.
(Log in to post comments)
Perpetual vs. irrevocable Posted Oct 30, 2003 1:40 UTC (Thu) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] That's true, and perpetual licenses sold by Oracle have a clearly labeled "Off" switch. If you violate certain terms, then your perpetual license ends, and that's fair because the "Off" switch is right there in the contract.But the agreement referenced above has no such "Off" switch, and I suspect (but have not seen) that the Unix License which IBM originally made was similar. No "Off" switch on a perpetual anything should equate to a reasonable expectation that the anything will not stop. So IBM may be entitled to additional compensation due to the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel from SCO saying they have revoked a (no off-switch) perpetual license. IBM has already made claims citing promissory estoppel arising from a reasonable expectation that SCO would abide by the GPL. If anyone has a link to IBM's license, that would be interesting reading.
|
|
||||||||||||