Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm <email@example.com> writes:
> On 14 Dec 1999, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't
> > bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so
> > what?
> Can't the owner, since he hasn't bound himself by the promise, change
> his mind and revoke his promise, threatening to sue the copier if he
> does not stop copying?
In practice, no. The terms attach to specific copies. The grant of
permission applies to a particular copy ("you may copy this physical
book" does not imply "you may copy that other physical book that
happens to contain the same text"). All the owner can take back is
the promise as it applies to new copies.