Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755785AbXICTE7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:04:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754386AbXICTEu (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:04:50 -0400 Received: from keil-draco.com ([216.193.185.50]:50496 "EHLO mail.keil-draco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753868AbXICTEt (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:04:49 -0400 From: Daniel Hazelton To: Krzysztof Halasa Subject: Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:04:17 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: davids@webmaster.com, "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" References: <200709031401.47111.dhazelton@enter.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709031504.17454.dhazelton@enter.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2169 Lines: 44 On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Daniel Hazelton writes: > > The fact > > remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of > > copyright > > license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. > > Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be > restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of "The license applies to the copyright holder" that I've seen a lot of people make (and kept quiet about). The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a license grant at any time. Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the copyright holder. If the license was of the "signed contract" type, or contained text stating that the copyright holder was giving up all rights of revocation (etc...) I could agree with you. As it stands, no "Open Source" license that I have seen used on a major project contains any part that does that. In fact, the GPL is the only license I can name (offhand) that even touches on the rights of the copyright holder - and then it is in the form of "If you do X, Y or Z all rights granted under this license are automatically revoked". That is an "automatic clause" - not a limitation stating that the copyright holder can only revoke under those conditions. The person holding the copyright has quite a few rights - more than people believe - and not even the most generous of Open Source licenses (except those that contain text like "granted in perpetuity" or similar) even come close to being exempt from the holder of the copyright not being able to summarily revoke a given persons license. DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/