[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ossig] Other open source projects



Chang Sau Sheong wrote:
> The copyright holder has all the rights to his own property. If he 
> decides to revoke the licence to his property, he has the right to, even 
> retrospectively. Of course, the code would be out there, but you will 
> not have a licence to copy, modify, redistribute or do anything that 
> copyright allowed you to previously.
> 
> If you have committed code to Java before that you will be the copyright 
> owner of whatever you wrote (unless you have signed some contracts tat 
> says watever u write will be assigned to ur employers). You can do 
> watever u want with ur code, if Sun wants to include ur code, and u 
> insist ur code is under GPL, then they will have make Java GPL or stop 
> using ur code.
> 
> And vice versa, if you are using Java even if it's GPL, if Sun decides 
> to stop licensing it as GPL and wants you to pay $$$ to them, you can't 
> stop them.

I think we're through with this, aren't we !

What you do when you use software or whatever, or offer software, you 
engage into a contract; irrespective if money is involved or not.
And the terms in this contract are valid terms; and there is no 
unilateral change of contract *possible*. You may revoke the license at 
any time, but only for future contracts.
This is exactly where the SCO case came in; and the GPL being 
'questioned': The only way to get SCO out of the misery
  - okay, here I might have to detail their misery: either SCO had a 
license to kernel and GNU stuff for their befamed 'Caldera'; that is the 
GPL; or they had no licence. In the latter case, the judge would have 
sent SCO home within 2 seconds. So they couldn't possibly state to not 
have a licence. So it must have been GPL. But since they (later) 
breached the terms of the GPL, they automatically *lost* that licence. 
Either way, they found themselves in pretty much of a misery.
Okay, and their only possible way out of this misery, would be a finding 
that declares the GPL unconstitutional from the beginning. Therefore 
this is what they try.
Back to 'our' business: As long as the contract is not against the law, 
you have no chance to unilaterally recede from it or revoke it.

I think, this should clear up even more things and as well refute your 
allegation:

> GPL is not tat powerful.

Uwe



---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message