In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chip Salzenberg writes: >According to John Cowan: >> Chip Salzenberg wrote: >> > In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. >> >> A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely >> revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if >> the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a >> trespasser. > >*shock* *dismay* > >I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? I would argue that I should have to abide by the license under which I bought it as I have never had a chance to acept or reject the other license. Use your imagination to add some fun clauses to new license :) Somehow this does not seem logical, reasonable, etc. Nils.
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL W . Yip
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL W . Yip
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Richard Watts
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- RE: Wired Article -- Nullifying a GPL? Dennis E. Hamilton
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL John Cowan
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Ken Arromdee
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Nils Lohner
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Richard Watts
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL John Cowan
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Justin Wells
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Matthew C. Weigel
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL John Cowan
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Richard Watts
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL John Cowan
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL W . Yip
- Re: Wired Article on the GPL Chip Salzenberg