Re: [DotGNU]Licences.

[Daniel Carrera]

Thank you very much for the thorough response.  I am a lot more clear on
this now.

Daniel.

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, David Sugar wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a question about law.  I need some help understanding licenses.
> > Understanding this will help me know when licenses are being broken.
> >
> > I have two questions:
> >
> > 1)  How can I project change license after its started?
> >
> > A project might start using the X11 license and then switch to the LGPL.
> > How can that be?
> > How can you add or take aways restrictions afterwards?
>
> The copyright owner(s) can choose to release software under any terms they
> wish, and change those terms later.  This simply means that a license
> "fork" has occured, where older releases are under the original license,
> and newer releases are under the new one.
>
> Some software is distributed with so called EULA's rather than thru
> application of copyright law.  EULA's attempt to create licensing thru
> basic contract law, and some claim that new terms can be retroactivily
> applied or that they can trump your rights to second sale.  I suppose one
> can make and sign a contract that agrees to any terms in theory, but the
> courts generally will not uphold clearly unreasonable terms.  For example,
> a contract signing yourself into slavery would not be upheld, regardless
> of if legally "signed" by two "consenting" parties.  In fact, retroactive
> EULA's are, I think, an instrument of fraud, and I wish they were
> prosecuted in that manner.
>
>  >
> >
> > 2) If I hold the copyright to a pice of software.  Say it's GPL.
> >
> > Do I have the right to give that software to someone under a different
> > license?
> > If so, that is a potential hamper on freedom.
>
> As the copyright owner, you can choose to do as you wish in this regard
> under existing law.  Yes, you could potentially give the software to one
> person under the GPL and to another under different terms.  Sometimes this
> is done openly, such as thru a disjunctive license, but it need not be.
> It would seem less a hamper on freedom than a futile exercise, however,
> since the person can simply receive the same code from someone else who
> can distribute it under the GPL.
>
> There may be other reasons why some may choose to make software available
> under the GPL to some people and not directly so to others.  The GPL for
> example disclaims warrenty.  Perhaps, as a vendor, one might choose to
> supply warrenties or other support, and do so to a set of customers that
> do not receive the code you are supporting under the GPL, where at the
> same time also making it available as free software.  I am not going to
> comment on the full ethical considerations involved, but I think there are
> some examples of this being done...
>
> I recall your original question was indirectly related to Lindows.  I will
> answer your question here in this context.  Lindows obviously does not
> hold copyright on most of the code they would choose to redistribute in
> their release, and only has legal permission to redistribute much of that
> code in any form due soley to a single legal instrument, the GPL.
> Assuming they do distribute a release, they must do so under the terms
> outlined by the GPL at least for those parts of their distribution so
> licensed.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Daniel.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Developers mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
> >
> >
>