Re: License questions

Isaac  wrote

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:05:34 +0100, Peter Fairbrother <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> 
>> But the BSD license has a neat twist - it allows the licensee to
>> redistribute. If the author stops releasing copies/licenses, anyone who
>> already has a license can still redistribute the code. The author can't
>> revoke that license. That's all a re-user needs.
> 
> Yes.  Similarly, anyone who had already received public domain code could
> continue to distribute even under estopel only.  But with respect to
> a third party who receives BSD code after becoming aware of the author's
> attempt to revoke permission to distribute; can that third party still
> redistribute?  
> 
>> In an even neater twist, the way the license works also means that the owner
>> of any lawfully obtained copy, whether obtained directly from the author or
>> indirectly through a third party, is also able to redistribute the code.
> 
> Why can't the license be revoked with respect to third parties who have
> yet to receive the code?  They aren't in privity of contract with the
> author, so the author is not bound by the license with respect to those
> parties.  

The author's first license includes a requirement, and thus implicit
permission, for the licensee to further license anyone he gives a copy to,
and so on. The author can't revoke the license, or that permission.

There isn't anything else for the author to revoke.


Looking at it another way, if the author revoked already granted licenses
WRT new people, then the already licensed people wouldn't be able to fulfill
the terms of their licenses, as they are required to include the
redistribution clause. They wouldn't be able to redistribute. That would be
revoking or altering the already granted licenses - and the author can't do
that.


The BSD ties the license to the copy. You can't lawfully get a copy without
also getting a license. It's really neat. Cool. l33t.


-- 
Peter Fairbrother