On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > > A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely > > revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if > > the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a > > trespasser. > I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' IANAL, but there's always the possibility of a court ruling that recipients of GPL software are providing consideration, so it's a contract. If you distribute a binary, the consideration might be that you distribute the source. Putting one's own code under GPL if linked with GPL might also be consideration--I don't think consideration has to directly benefit the original copyright owner to count as consideration. The FSF really should get involved in this, because the implications of this question are obviously pretty big.
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Mark Wielaard
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL W . Yip
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL W . Yip
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Richard Watts
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- RE: Wired Article -- Nullifying a GPL? Dennis E. Hamilton
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL John Cowan
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Ken Arromdee
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Nils Lohner
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Richard Watts
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL John Cowan
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Justin Wells
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Matthew C. Weigel
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL John Cowan
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Richard Watts
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL John Cowan
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL W . Yip