On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:24:29PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > Could you give an example of something that would "contradict the AFL", > > that isn't allowed? (If I'm allowed to distribute the work under the X11 > > license, then it seems like anything is allowed, except for obvious things > > like removing the author's name.) > > That's the whole idea. It's a "copycenter" license: take the code > down to the copy center and make as many copies (or derivatives) > as you want.
You were previously talking about "contradicting the AFL", though. Are there actually any cases of this, or is it a practically null set? > You should rather ask: what is there about any statement that makes > it irrevocable? The fact that it forms part of a valid contract. > Contracts *are* statements of intent by one party that the other can > enforce. If I say, "I'm going to give you a million dollars", and > then say "No I'm not", I've revoked my promise, but because there is > no contract you cannot enforce this promise. This isn't the same as you claiming you'll give me something, not doing so and me suing for it; there's nothing I need to enforce, you're just giving up your right for me to not distribute your work. It's you (the licensor) that's doing the enforcing, here: you've granted me permission to do something normally prohibited by copyright law. Turn it around: what is there about your license that might make it revocable? Is there anything in the law that suggests this, that one could point the FSF at: "this looks like a problem; is it?" Given the vague "this might be a problem, but I don't really know", it's hard to even formulate a decent question. (If we had one, we could try asking the FSF--asking Eben Moglen directly isn't the right thing to do, anyway--but this is still so vague I wouldn't know what to ask.) -- Glenn Maynard
