Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails
the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely
unsuitable for any serious deployment.
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
But it can't be done, period.
Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
That I am
Peter Samuelson wrote:
Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails
the Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely
unsuitable for any serious deployment.
[Roberto C. Sanchez]
But it can't be done, period.
Reference:
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Point taken. However, the GPL clearly states the conditions in
section 6:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree that this
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL is anomalous in that the drafter has published a widely
believed, but patently false, set of claims about its legal basis in
the FSF FAQ.
For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false.
It is, in places, a bit
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false.
It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
not. Does anyone happen to have a six-month-old copy of the FSF FAQ?
From 11-2004:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
-Roberto
--
For the record, I disagree that this faq is patently false.
It is, in places, a bit simplistic, but I wouldn't advise anyone
delve into those fine points of law unless they've retained
the services of a lawyer (at which point the FAQ is merely
an interesting commentary -- it has less
On 5/19/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130014304/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041105024302/http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Thanks, Roberto. The (moderately) explicit bit I had in mind is in
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip Raul's honest and polite response]
I've been objecting to the nature of the generalizations you've been
making. In other words, I see you asserting that things which are
sometimes true must always be true.
In the case of the contract
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps that is indeed what you would do. I don't consider lawyers to
be the only persons capable of reading the law for themselves. They
are the only ones authorized to offer certain forms of legal advice
and legal representation, but
Hello,
(Sorry for just intejecting into the discussion like this, but)
>From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time,
NullSoft did infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL
(NullSoft's parent company) didn't like this, and that message on
NullSoft's website is because of
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
From what I understand of the history of WASTE. At one time, NullSoft did
infact release WASTE under the GPL. However, AOL (NullSoft's parent company)
didn't like this, and that message on NullSoft's website is because of that.
(And thus, it
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:40:06AM -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
Now, from what I understand, once you release something under the GPL, you
cannot un-release it. And if that is the case, then this software is OK.
You're assuming the people who released it had the right to do that in
This topic has been beat to death and is the cause for most of the
devs bailing throughout the life of the project (legal concerns).
There are a couple old articles on /. that should cover all the
arguments (in the comments)...but I'm sure you'll find them all over.
here's one:
Hello,
Yes, you are correct. I am assuming that.
As far as I can tell, even if AOL didn't approve it, NullSoft, being
the owners of the code, are allowed and able to release the code
under whatever license they want to release it under. (Whether
they'll get in trouble or not from AOL, for doing
[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]
It seem to me that they got in trouble for doing so. And then tried
to take things back. But the GPL doesn't allow for that.
It seems to me that this is another of those things everyone takes for
a postulate just because the FSF said so. Rather like the assumption
Peter Samuelson wrote:
I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
this is grounded on the basis of her having received no
On 5/18/05, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I know at least one developer on a prominent open source project who
believes otherwise, and claims to be prepared to revoke their license
to her code, if they do certain things to piss her off. Presumably
this is grounded on the
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Samuelson wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I'm aware that if it's possible to revoke the GPL, it fails the
Tentacles of Evil test, and GPL software would be completely unsuitable
for any serious deployment. Note, however, that but it *can't*
On 5/18/05, Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is completely not possible. Once you offer (and someone accepts)
code under the terms of the GPL, they are for evermore entitled to use
*that* code under the GPL.
There are some exceptions to this. For example, if you're not the
21 matches
Mail list logo
