John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
At best, it's murky. At worst, you're wrong.
By this logic, if you purchase a BSD license, then it too can be
retroactively revoked. Even if there is a non-revokability clause. All
the enemy needs is better lawyers.
Not if you *purchase*. Be careful with your wording. A purchase would
fall under contract law, not copyright law. Purchased licenses cannot
be revoked except under the terms of the contract.
However, yes, even a BSD license could be revoked. In the case of
FreeBSD, they allow everybody to keep their copyright. Changing the
license would require a huge effort to coordinate the copyright change
which effectively prohibits the problem (just like Linux--getting the
permission of the copyright holders would be difficult).
This leads us to a point where the only code we can possibly use is the
code we write ourselves.
Back up ...
The problem is when a *single*, *unified* entity has control over the
copyright and *no community accountability*. There are only a few
packages like that.
This is true for Qt. It is, currently I believe, true for the release
of Java from Sun (but not for gcj). I can't think of many others.
It is not true for Linux or FreeBSD since they have lots of copyrights
distributed to lots of people. Making the change would be a Sisyphean task.
It is not true for things like Gnu software or Gnome software because
the copyrights are assigned to an entity that has specific
accountability to the community.
Your claim of murkiness smacks of FUD. Large piles of it.
Your claim of clarity smacks of naivete. Large piles of it.
Look at what SCO could do with a completely hopeless case. We got lucky
that SCO has stupid lawyers and went after IBM. Microsoft won't be so
stupid.
You do *not* wish to give Microsoft even a theoretical wedge to drive
home. This is why I am such an ardent anti-Mono person. gcj is good
enough and doesn't come with the danger that C# represents.
I recently heard de Icaza (Mr. Mono) going ape over the idea of creating
a Silverlight (Microsoft's Flash) clone for Linux. Arggggggghhhhh!
This is one instance that I want to kick the hackers. Everything should
be focused on getting Adobe to open source Flash *before* Microsoft gets
Silverlight going otherwise Microsoft will use Silverlight to try to
fragment the web again. As a side effect, Google won't be able to index
Silverlight pages. Quoth Microsoft--"Oh, darn. Sorry about that."
Will they never learn?
I'm starting to think of de Icaza as Microsoft's pet ferret.
Ballmer: "Here Miguel ..."
De Icaza: "Ohhhh ... shiny ... <hack> <hack> <hack>"
Ballmer: "Ah, no trouble from Novell for another 5 years. <snicker>"
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
