Sponsored link
Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here.
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Not So Simple
Not So Simple
Posted 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?