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

Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being

Thomas Bushnell, BSG said:
> William T Wilson <fluffy@snurgle.org> writes:
> > This is a very interesting thought.  What if you reverse it?  The *author*
> > of the software receives no consideration from the person the software is
> > distributed to.  I am suddenly very afraid of this.
> Yes, and that means that the copier cannot sue the author.  So what?
> In what scenario do you think the copier should be allowed to sue the
> author?

This came up, I believe, in the context of an author revoking the
'permission to copy' that the GPL grants -- on software that was
previously given out under the GPL.  E.g., openssh is based on an old
but free version (though non-GPL, I think?) of ssh.  The author of the
original ssh has since moved to a non-free license; does the author
also have the right to revoke the old license, thus making openssh
in violation?

I have to admit that this seems to be a rather absurd conclusion, but,
of course, IANAL.  The issue here isn't necessarily the right to sue so
much as the ability of the author to win a suit taken against openssh

Jeremy Hankins (Nowan), <nowan@pobox.com>
gpg/pgp5 fingerprint = 3FEF 96EC FC60 677D 385D  3B49 318D 00CB 3799 DD60
pgp2.6   fingerprint = F2 6A DE 4A 78 73 D1 B5  02 9D 6F 00 C6 DC 5B EB

Reply to: