🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <90122.182053DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu> DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes:
> In article <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>, matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt
> Crawford) says:
> >By now many of you will have noticed some absurd restrictions placed in
> >the copyright notices on sources submitted by Dan Bernstein to
> >comp.sources.unix.  The conditions include
> >        o  No rights to the recipient except those explicitly granted.
> This may seem a little harsh (legalese) but I see no problem with this.

It's both rather harsh and legally unenforceable. That's why I don't do
any such thing. The GPL, in section 4, does.

Either Matt's lying or he's severely mistaken. As he pulled this
statement out of thin air I think it's reasonable to conclude the
former. I hope nobody makes decisions about software on such grounds.

> >        o  Those rights, what few there are, are revocable upon
> >           "written, oral, or other" notice, and are "automatically"
> >           revoked on a certain date in the future.
> This sounds like 'attorney-ese'.  It gives him the right eventually
> sell this code commercially.

I don't plan to: I have a reputation to uphold. Even if I (like the FSF)
gave away all my rights permanently, I'd be able to get them back after
a certain period of time, as specified by 17 USC 203(a). I'd be lying to
the people who use my code if I didn't specify any limit.

I mean the expiration date as a commitment to support. Anyway, once you
have a legal copy, I can't take it away from you, nor would I want to.

> It does indicate that if he does so, then
> copies of this software already in existence must be licensed.

No, it doesn't. That's a legal misconception promulgated by the GPL and
similar unenforceable licenses.

Once you have legally obtained some software, it's yours. Nobody can
take your ownership rights away with after-the-fact licenses. This is
true for my software, true for Emacs, and true for every other program
ever distributed.

---Dan