[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [WASTE-dev-public] Do not package WASTE! UNAUTHORIZED SOFTWARE [Was: Re: Questions about waste licence and code.]

> > 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: