On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > >On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes. > > > >Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a > >patented software, then it's non-free without such a licence. Are > >there other circumstances where GPL 7 offers arbitrary termination? > > Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's > requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code. > I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for > users than the copyright holder being able to terminate the license.
Under GNU GPL 7, you can reasonably predict what actions of yours will cause your license to terminate. "The copyright holder reserves the right to terminate your license at any time, without prior notice, and without your consent." is substantively different. Termination due to non-compliance is one thing. Termination due to the copyright holder's, e.g., bad case of gas, is quite another. -- G. Branden Robinson | Kissing girls is a goodness. It is Debian GNU/Linux | a growing closer. It beats the [EMAIL PROTECTED] | hell out of card games. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
