John Cowan wrote about the word "forever" [1]: > In my non-lawyer opinion, the irrevocability clause of GPL3 hasn't got a leg to stand on. If I put up a sign on my land saying PUBLIC ACCESS PERMITTED and then take it down before prescription kicks in, the fact that the sign also said THIS SIGN WILL NOT BE TAKEN DOWN doesn't seem to help someone I sue for trespass, except through the exceedingly dodgy mechanism of equitable estoppel (or quasi-contract in Roman lands).
Doubtless if they were actually in transit when I revoked the permission.... Bending the words to suit my fancy, a GPL program intentionally posted by its author somewhere on the web and freely copied by others is thereafter "in transit." I don't see how any author can successfully revoke a valid GPL license for existing copies that she already placed in the wild. Again you've sent me into litigation fantasies.... When is this ever a problem? /Larry [1] Forever = "Single term of life plus 70 years (but if work is made for hire or anonymous or pseudonymous, 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from date of creation, whichever ends first)." https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:co...@mercury.ccil.org] Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 10:04 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations <snip>
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss