| |||||||||||||
Not So SimpleNot So SimplePosted Dec 5, 2003 14:08 UTC (Fri) by piman (subscriber, #8957)In reply to: Not So Simple by ncm Parent article: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract 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?
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||