Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:21:30AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
> obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
> we deal with patents. Almost all software we ship has the sword of
> patent suits hanging over its head, and could become non-free at any
> time as a result. We accept this because there's no way we can indemnify
> our users. RMS has claimed that failing to comply with the GPL means
> that your license is effectively terminated, even if you cease doing so.
> Even an accidental breach of the GPL could result in the copyright
> holder contending that you no longer have any license at all.
The patent situation is thrust upon us; we can't avoid it. That doesn't
imply that we should allow clauses which create more such situations,
allowing termination at any time according to the author's mood and whim.
The "Tentacles of Evil" test enunciates the need for this better (FAQ 9 A c):
"Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now
in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program:
to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to
expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to
discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought
out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to
maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot
allow even the author to take away the required freedoms!"
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: