On Wednesday, 14 August 2013, John Cowan wrote: This procedure is not equivalent, except in the long run, to the kind of license Fred Trotter wants, because its effect on particular copies is different. Suppose that Alice sells Bob the source code to Yoyomat, a proprietary program with delayed GPL. After the term has passed, Bob may now distribute *that very copy* of Yoyomat freely to Charlie under the terms of the GPL. In the scenario you outline, he may not; he must obtain a new copy from the escrow agent.
No, Mr Cowan, that's a charming idea, but it's completely wrong. These are non-exclusive licenses we are discussing. Everyone is permitted to copy, modify and redistribute the licensed work on the stated free terms. Surely you don't suppose that the licensor could successfully sue for infringement, after publishing a non-exclusive free license, because of further copying or modification of a pre-existing copy of the very same bits? (You will also notice the complete inconsistency between the operation of your proposed doctrine and the first sale rule.) My described conveyance is, in every respect, legally identical to what Fred Trotter was asking about. Really, you can trust me to know how free software licenses basically work. Eben -- Eben Moglen v: 212-461-1901 Professor of Law, Columbia Law School f: 212-580-0898 moglen@ Founding Director, Software Freedom Law Center columbia.edu 1995 Broadway (68th Street), fl #17, NYC 10023 softwarefreedom.org _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
