🚀 go-pugleaf

/ gnu.misc.discuss / kozma@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John Kozma) / Apr 23, 1990 /
(I'm no lawyer.)

I agree that GPL is not an exclusive license.

> A non-exclusive license is a license
> to distribute (etc) without an accompanying promise by the licensor not to
> grant further licenses: in this case it is the licensor who retains the
> exclusive right, ie the right to grant or deny further licenses.

This means that it is necessary for SOMEBODY in the world to have an
exclusive right to the work.  Is it?  Why?

> It is
> possible to grant a public license, but if such a license is not a dedication
> (placing the work in the public domain), it must be freely revocable by the
> copyright owner (for any reason, or for no reason).

That doesn't sound right.  What a great way to sell code: place it in the
public domain, and when there are a million copies of it embedded in other
code, revoke the public license and demand royalties!  Are you sure about
this?

> The GPL purports to
> require its licensees to, under certain conditions, to grant a license
> (...) in the GPL licensee's
> copyrighted (source) code.  This is fine, but I maintain that such a license
> is freely revocable by the grantor, even with respect to his distributee,
> because it is unsupported (as required by the GPL) by consideration.

Are saying that it would not be revokable if the distributee paid $1 for
it?  If so, does the distributee have to be the one that provides something
in consideration?  What if FSF paid $1 for it?  What if FSF paid for it
with at least $1 worth of code (which it does)?

> If
> the GPL licensee somehow owes a duty to FSF (the GPL licensor) not to revoke
> the public license he granted his distributee in his (the GPL licensee's)
> code, then he (the GPL licensee) effectively shares the right to exclude
> others from distributing (etc) his (the GPL licensee's) code, which means
> the FSF has obtained part ownership of his (the GPL licensee's) copyright.

OK.  So, what's the problem?  I don't see why one can't consider "part
ownership" of one's code by FSF (or the GPL licensor in general) part of
the price of the license for GPL'ed code.  In fact, you are paying for the
GPL'ed code with, probably, at least $1 worth of ownership.  Consideration,
right?

Jacob
--
Jacob Gore		Jacob@Gore.Com			boulder!gore!jacob