Henning Makholm wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > All the owner can take back is the promise as it applies to new > > copies. > > That is bad enough as it is. It means that once the owner changes his > mind, we lose the right to make and distribute new modifications: > I might still have the right to make one modified copy of the work, > but I don't have any right to copy that one copy further.
Unless I miss my mark, it means that the assumptions we've made on the legality of free software are correct. The author cannot change the license on code you already have; if he does change the license on new versions, you still have a free version and can fork a new project out of it. And yes, that means you still have the ability to make copies of that source, because the license you received the code under allowed you to copy and modify it as many times as you want. In this case, "new copies" means new versions...so an author can close the source for future versions, but cannot make it retroactive -- it's already been released. This is why the PINE situation is/was of dubious legality. UW granted specific rights, then revoked them for future versions. All of these things are legal. But threatening legal action to keep people from exercising the rights they already had under the older license? That sounds awfully fishy, but you obviously can't force them to give you the old source back if it's been lost. -- | Jeff Teunissen -=- Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing -- d2deek at pmail.net | Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :) | dusknet.dhis.net is a black hole for email. Use my Reply-To address. | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhis.net/~deek/
