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

Re: GPL, "license upgrades", and the obligation to offer source code

m.k.edwards@gmail.com wrote:
>With respect to authorization to accept contract terms, a court
>shouldn't honor a check that was blank when you signed it unless you
>endorsed it after it was filled in. 

IIRC, they do honor them in the case of checks!
Writing a blank check is a bad idea, of course.

>Not if you protest promptly once
>you learn about them that you don't want to be bound by such terms. 
Ah, yes, well, that may be a different case then.

Debian usually doesn't carry software where the author actually says "I didn't 
mean to license it that way, it was a really big mistake," even when the 
license is clear textually.  That's only politeness; but if it were legal, it 
wouldn't really be that bad.

I would generally expect 'upgrade clauses' to be used primarily for works by 
vanished authors, and for works by authors whose copyright has passed to 
third parties.  As an author I can see a good case for explicitly allowing 
the FSF to license my work under any license they like -- if I then plan to 
sell my copyright to a corporation, which may later go bankrupt and get 
bought by a litigation firm!

>Like the right to renegotiate the terms of a copyright license after a
>certain number of years, the right to decline terms that you haven't
>seen ought to be inalienable.

Only for the author, absolutely *not* for heirs, purchasers, or assignees!

Reply to: