On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 21:55 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > The terms of the GPL (any version) don't speak to "concern[...] with > post-violation compliance" or not. That's entirely up to the copyright > holder (or whoever is doing the enforcement).
Actually, that's not right. One of the most important steps forward in the GPLv3 is the new rule of limitation - as a copyright holder, I cannot terminate the GPLv3 due to violation of terms if that occurred more than two months ago and the violator has since come into compliance. The opens up a new, legally sound, route out of violation: people like Eben Moglen can go to violators and say, "If you come into compliance, you know that within two months your legal liability in this area is gone - the slate is wiped clean". The FSF, nor anyone else, can go back on an agreement they make and attempt to sue a violator outside that time. Going back to my original point, I don't think anyone can sensibly argue that the requirement to publicise a shared secret code/key is not a term primarily concerned with post-violation compliance. I don't think it's a big assumption to say the number of people designing secret systems that they know are going to be publicised has to be pretty small compared with the number of people who would have to later open a closed system. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
