A post about SqueakL

Andrew Greenberg werdna at mucow.com
Thu Sep 15 09:25:01 UTC 2005


On Sep 14, 2005, at 2:13 PM, Tom Hoffman wrote:

> On 9/14/05, Andrew Greenberg <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped long legal explanation />
>
>
>> End result:  It is risky in the extreme, to presume without sound
>> advice that a license is irrevocable -- either as grantor or grantee.
>>
>
> OK, but how does this change anyone's behavior?

I have no idea, Tom.  I was simply responding to your remark:

> However, I don't think this statement by Göran is accurate:
>
> "If I write code and publish it under GPL or the MIT license - it
> *still* is copyrighted by me and I can *still* change or revoke the
> license as I see fit."
>
> You cannot retroactively revoke the license on software you've
> distributed, unless perhaps if the orignal license explicitly give the
> author the rights to do so.  Needless to say, any license which could
> be revoked in this way would not be free software by any definition.

My observation is that those remarks are legally naive, and your  
suggestion that revocability renders software unfree "under any  
definition" suggests Debian ought not publish anything.  I agree that  
the realities are that most licenses work just fine, and there is a  
wide difference between theoretical legal consquences and practice.   
This brings me to my point: Squeak-L, as a license, works just fine,  
is freer than most, and Debian ought to lighten up.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20050915/fd69aae3/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list