On 26 Jul 2000, Henning Makholm wrote: > No, they *require* that the licensee licence his modification to > them, which is legal enough. In a sense, the GPL also says something > similar: roughly, "if you distribute modifications, you must give us > (and everyone else, by the way) the same rights to your modifications > as we give you to the original".
In my eyes GPL doesn't say "give us", but "give those, who receive this program by you". And as I read the paragraph, it is about the copryright, not about rights to "use" it. (Where use shall mean use,copy,share,distribute,modify,...) > No. It's very common in licenses, free ones too, to say that the > license terminates if licensee does not meet his obligations (which > typically include not attacking the freedom of the program). Saying > so is strictly redundant, since that is the way contracts normally > work, but it does not harm if some paranoid lawyer wants to state > the obvious explicitly. Is it about termination in other cases or was it about termination if they want it to terminate? Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link
