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

Re: Fwd: figlet license change from Artistic to Clarified Artistic or Artistic 2.0?

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 03:26:54PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> The whole definition of "bare license" means a license that is unsupported
> by consideration (i.e. not a contract):
> 	A bare license must be executed by the party to whom it is given
> 	in person, and cannot be made over or assigned by him to another;
> 	and, being without consideration, may be revoked at pleasure,
> 	as long as it remains executory; 39 Hen. VI. M. 12, page 7;
> 	but when carried into effect, either partially or altogether,
> 	it can only be rescinded, if in its nature it will admit of
> 	revocation, by placing the other side in the same situation
> 	in which he stood before he entered on its execution. 8 East,
> 	R. 308; Palm. 71; S. C. Poph. 151; S. C. 2 Roll. Rep. 143, 152.
> 		--Bouvier (an 1856 public-domain law dictionary)
> Note that the first citation is to a case decided in 1461, which puts it
> comfortably in the root of all common-law jurisdictions, unless explicitly
> overruled by statute (which is unlikely).

If you can point to a US statute or case law echoing the above, or in
some way suggesting that it's relevant to the US, then it might help
give me the specific question for the FSF that I'm hunting for.

(I'm aware that Free Software is global, and the law of jurisdictions
other than the US is relevant, but I have my hands full trying to grasp
my own country's law ...)

> The FSF is well familiar with this.

If they're familiar with it, they should be willing to make it known.  So,
I'll ask them about it.  (If I get around to it, anyway.)

This isn't a problem that can be fixed with contracts, though--it can
probably only be fixed by legislation.  (And as it's mostly a "might be
a problem decades from now for code that's still around", I don't see
much effort being put to that.)

> It's one of the many reasons (or excuses)
> why Daniel Bernstein refuses to release his software under a free license,
> since he says that free licenses claim to grant more rights than are actually
> grantable.  (BTW, Bernstein also grants a bare license to copy his almost
> unmodifiable files, and denies that it is within his power to revoke them,
> though with no argument why.)

I don't find the antics of DJB too interesting, personally.  :)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: