Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
- Date: 01 Nov 2002 02:53:12 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] yahadkuawdz.fsf@pc-043.diku.dk>
- In-reply-to: Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS's message of "Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:34:15 +0000"
- References: <20021029181154.GZ17459@deadbeast.net> <20021029195609.GA27424@dat.etsit.upm.es> <20021029212128.GF4866@netexpress.net> <20021030083858.GA15758@dat.etsit.upm.es> <20021030203804.GF15025@netexpress.net> <20021031081231.GB3299@dat.etsit.upm.es> <20021031172932.GA5424@dvdeug> <yahwunycwoo.fsf@pc-043.diku.dk> <20021031185407.GA832@rano.org> <20021031201508.GD5526@netexpress.net> <20021031233415.GC832@rano.org>
Scripsit Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>
> My point exactly. A typical free software licence does not constrain
> the future behaviour of the licenser. It's not a promise.
My point is that it *is* a promise: By licencing my work under GPL, I
promise to the world at large that anyone who subjects himself to
certain conditions will in return be able to (automatically) obtain my
permission to copy that particular work, and works derived for it.
In the case that such a promise is not legally possible (which may
well be the case in some jurisdictions), it is nevertheless my
*intention* to promise it in such a way that people can rely on my not
revoking that promise without needing to trust me, personally.
--
Henning Makholm "Luk munden og se begavet ud!"
Reply to: