Sponsored link Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here. |
Not So SimpleNot So SimplePosted Dec 4, 2003 22:09 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: Not So Simple by piman Parent article: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract Ha. We've been through this one before. That clause was meant to allow musicians to terminate a license after 35 years even when they signed a contract granting the license in perpetuity. Only in California did the record companies find judges willing to take it to mean that a license couldn't be revoked before 35 years had elapsed. The decision is widely acknowledged as a mistake. (The key line is "(5) Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.")
(Log in to post comments)
Not So Simple Posted Dec 5, 2003 14:08 UTC (Fri) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Regardless of its purpose, USC 17 203 (especially 203b1, which still applies to 203a5) is there. It says that you can continue to abide by the terms of an otherwise-terminated license for a derivative work, and it lays out some pretty onerous terms for terminating the license in the first place.But I've backed up my case -- where's your evidence that a copyright license can be revoked? How does it fit into USC 17 203?
|
Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Powered by Rackspace Managed Hosting.