On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 10:29:58AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > IANAL but this has been discussed extensively in for example Slashdot,
Not the best place for legal analysis, but then I suppose this list is only marginally better. :) > and the current theory of licensing in the US and probably in EU as > well is that a non-profit license can be revoked. It would mean that > the copies in existence would stay legal but you couldn't distribute > them any longer. The key here is that if the licensee compensates the > licenser in any way, then the license can not be revoked, but if no > compensation is made, then the license may be revoked by the licenser > at will. Well, wouldn't you say that gratis QA, bugfixes, and enhancements to the code under reciprocal terms count as a form of consideration? Of course, my logic doesn't apply to freely-licensed software that is bug-free and never patched, but that's a pretty small domain. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's "magic" is another man's Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
pgpXkZyJvBZBL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
