Thomas Bushnell, BSG said: > William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is a very interesting thought. What if you reverse it? The *author* > > of the software receives no consideration from the person the software is > > distributed to. I am suddenly very afraid of this. > > Yes, and that means that the copier cannot sue the author. So what? > In what scenario do you think the copier should be allowed to sue the > author?
This came up, I believe, in the context of an author revoking the 'permission to copy' that the GPL grants -- on software that was previously given out under the GPL. E.g., openssh is based on an old but free version (though non-GPL, I think?) of ssh. The author of the original ssh has since moved to a non-free license; does the author also have the right to revoke the old license, thus making openssh in violation? I have to admit that this seems to be a rather absurd conclusion, but, of course, IANAL. The issue here isn't necessarily the right to sue so much as the ability of the author to win a suit taken against openssh users/author. -- Jeremy Hankins (Nowan), <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gpg/pgp5 fingerprint = 3FEF 96EC FC60 677D 385D 3B49 318D 00CB 3799 DD60 pgp2.6 fingerprint = F2 6A DE 4A 78 73 D1 B5 02 9D 6F 00 C6 DC 5B EB
