On 07-Sep-06, at 1:40 PM, Nachiketa Sadhu wrote:
there is no clause saying it can be revoked - by definition the
copyright holder can revoke the license unless
1. there is a clause saying it is irrevocable
2. the license has been paid for
1. By principle of natural justice should it not be reverse? There
should be a clause saying the license can be revoked under these
conditions.
I think GPL should have a clause where the licensor undertakes not to
revoke the license unless the license conditions are violated.
When you say "paid for" is the consideration only financial? Does
not your agreeing to the principle of freedom be taken as your
payment?
the consideration need not be only financial - but the courts may not
accept what you have stated as adequate consideration
btw, dont think i am opposed to the GPL - all i am saying is that
when advocating the GPL we should be clear on what it means and not
BS people who have genuine doubts.
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Associate, NRC-FOSS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
