Paul Nathan Puri writes: > Where you say 'free licenses cannot be revoked': What is your authority > for that statement?
I'm saying that in my opinion, revocable licenses are not free. My "authority" is the DFSG and my understanding of what free software is. It really isn't a question of law. > The licensor can set the terms and conditions upon which revocation may > be a consequence. Yes, of course he can. That is the whole point of having a copyright or patent, isn't it? I just meant that if he does choose to release his work under a revocable license, that it should not be considered free. Note: by "revocable license" I don't mean ones that are automatically revoked should the licensee fail to comply with the conditions. I mean ones such as the IBM Postfix license that can be revoked at will by the licensor. -- John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
