Re: freedomization task list [was: Re: Dangerous precedent being
Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Henning Makholm wrote:
> >
> > > tb@MIT.EDU (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > >
> > > > All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new
> > > > copies.
> > >
> > > That is bad enough as it is.
> >
> > I think he meant `as it applies to new released versions'.
>
> No, given what he wrote in the part I did not quote, it is obvious that
> he means the promise attaches itself to a single physical copy of the
> work - not to other perhaps identical copies it.
Exactly -- which is the same thing. Once you have received a copy, you
may copy it again under the same terms, and so can the people who
received it from you.
Also, other copies that are identical obviously must have been released
in the same way; otherwise, they would not be identical.
> > Once GPLed, always GPLed.
>
> Courts are seldom impressed with slogans if they contradict the existing
> legal practise in the jurisdiction.
In this case, there's no difference. Existing legal practice attaches the
permission of use to individual copies, true, but all copies have the
same permissions due to the explicit permission to copy and/or modify. It
would require a new release, under a new license, to have a version that
couldn't be redistributed.
--
| Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -- d2deek at pmail.net
| Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :)
| dusknet.dhis.net is a black hole for email. Use my Reply-To address.
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhis.net/~deek/
Reply to: