Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> You're not considering all the cases. It is true that Debian's >> license to the original works persists. But we won't have a license >> to the derivative work, because the upstream author didn't have the >> right to prepare that work, much less license it. > > Are you arguing that the GPL fails the Tentacles of Evil test?
I wouldn't bring up the Tentacles of Evil test, since I think it's overbroad and a bit silly. That said... > Your position seems to be that anyone who has derived some GPL'ed > software B from other people's GPL'ed work A can retrospectively > revoke the GPL license for B by offering a shareware version of it (in > breach of the license terms for A). No, only that the authors of A will revoke their license to make and distribute B on some actions on the part of B's author. That is, the GPL: 2b says that the modified work is licensed *as a whole* to third parties under the terms of this license. (emphasis mine) 4: However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. 6: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. Most importantly, notice that in 6 the original licensor grants rights regarding the Program, not works based on it. The rights to the modified program come only from 2b. So when the current maintainer loses his rights in 2b because of 4, we continue to have the rights granted in 6, and... hm. You know, I'm reading 4 again and realizing that it says "from you," speaking to the current maintainer. You're right. The only way Debian can get in trouble is if it distributes a modified version created *after* the current maintainer lost his rights. > If that is true we will have to remove from main all GPL'ed programs > whose current maintainer is not their sole author. No, this is no different from the case where the current maintainer does anything else to illegally use material written by others in his work. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
