> > Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails > > the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely > > unsuitable for any serious deployment. [Roberto C. Sanchez] > But it can't be done, period. > > Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html That I am not legally trained does not make me completely unschooled in these things. Believe it or not, I actually did already know the FSF's position on the revocability of the GPL. That is why I opened my message with a sentence you helpfully did not quote: > > It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes > > for a postulate just because the FSF said so. I'm much more interested in arguments that do not start with "well, the FSF says..." or "this is ridiculous, everyone knows that..." or even "for 12 years we've all assumed...". It seems to me that the FSF position on the irrevocability of free software depends on the interesting dual notions that the license is not a contract, but nonetheless the copyright holder is bound by it. Michael Edwards disputes the former notion; this seems to be a productive line of reasoning.
Description: Digital signature