From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA31703; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:44:01 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA31783 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:44:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from mail2.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.58]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h1ODhvT21759 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:43:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from ozemail.com.au (syd-ts20-2600-127.tpgi.com.au [203.213.127.127]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by mail2.tpgi.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1ODhs801883 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:43:54 +1100 Message-ID: <3E5A219A.7070101@ozemail.com.au> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:43:54 +1100 From: John Max Skaller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2.1) Gecko/20010901 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] User library license References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Brian Hurt wrote: > There is a theory in IP law circles that the *only* way a copyrightable > work can become public domain is for the copyright to expire. And that > simply distributing the work without a license doesn't mean that a license > (with arbitrary terms) could be imposed at a later point. There is a very serious fundamental flaw of understanding here. A (typical) licence does NOT impose any constraints on the client. Totally to the contrary, a licence applies constraints on the vendor. The client is first restricted by copyright laws, and then the licence RELEASES the client from certain constraints of the copyright under certain conditions, and as such the licence is a UNILATERAL PROMISE BY THE AUTHOR/VENDOR. The licence is NOT any kind of agreement. In a court, the author might sue the client for breaching copyright, and the client might claim that the use was in accordance with the licence .. and THE ONUS IS ON THE CLIENT TO PROVE THE AUTHOR PERMITTED THE USE e made of the code which would otherwise breach copyright. I would not like to have to prove that since I do NOT have a signed piece of paper with the authors permission to make such copies as would otherwise be proscribed. I'd probably only feel confident if the source was encrypted and signed by PGP and matched the authors loudly proclaimed public key. I think a judge would believe that. So you can see that companies have a twofold problem with GPL and other such licences: first is that they may not feel they can use the code with the permissions granted by the author, and second that they have grave doubts they can actually prove those permissions were granted. BTW: I wonder what would happen if say Microsoft breached GPL. It would be funny because I don't think GNU could sue them. i mean, even if the case were proved, it is a civil matter and they'd have to sue for damages .. only GNU doesn't make any money out of their code and so the damages would have to be zero :-) I suspect RedHat could sue for damages .. and might actually be awarded a non-zero sum, but the best GNU would ever get is an order to stop distribution. -- John Max Skaller, mailto:skaller@ozemail.com.au snail:10/1 Toxteth Rd, Glebe, NSW 2037, Australia. voice:61-2-9660-0850 ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners