Pamela Chestek scripsit: > Doesn't that mean that the word "irrevocable" is meaningless? We don't > like words without meaning in contracts, especially one so central to > the entire premise of free software.
It's my view (and I'm not alone in this) that the vast majority of free software licenses are not contracts at all, and are like licenses to enter upon land: that is, they are permissions by the owner to do things that would otherwise be forbidden to all by the owner's proprietary rights in the property. As such, they are not supported by consideration and can be revoked at the will of the licensor. Most proprietary licenses are not like this: the license is provided in exchange for obvious consideration in the form of money paid by the licensee. The licenses written by Larry truly are contracts, and are exempt from this view of mine. > Java BCL, anyone? Who knows what secret source, or sauce, might underlie the current binary releases of Java? (The Shadow knows.) IANA, TINLA, but this is not UPL either. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your ear. However, I would suggest you wash your hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. --gadicath _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
