[Charles Iliya Krempeaux] > It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried > to "take things back". But the GPL doesn't allow for that.
It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes for a postulate just because the FSF said so. Rather like the assumption that copyright law gives the GPL scope over libraries whose interfaces you use. I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably this is grounded on the basis of her having received no consideration, since it's a bit harder to revoke someone's right to use something they bought and paid for. It is also possible that she's a looney. Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable for any serious deployment. Note, however, that "but it *can't* be that way because if it is, we're all in trouble" is not a very strong argument. > But yes,... all of it is based on the initial assumption that > whomever originally released the code under the GPL was allowed to. s/whomever/whoever/ (: Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
