Language question

[John Cowan]

Mark Rafn scripsit:

> This is correct.  Because you've granted permissions on these works 
> already, you no longer have the exclusive right to do certain things, and 
> so that right will not transfer.  Rights which you DO retain can be 
> transferred.

It's *far* from clear that the licenses you have already granted are somehow
irrevocable.  I'd be interested to know under what theory you think they are.

> Nope.  Company B can release new work under proprietary licenses, and can
> stop distributing the open-source version, but any copies of the
> open-source work are still there,

Indeed.

> and can be freely copied and further
> modified by anyone who wishes.

On what theory?  If the sovereign copyright owner no longer grants permission
for these activities, then they cannot be done, AFAICS.

> Likewise, the copyright holder of an open-source work is not making an 
> obligation to the community or to any recipient.  He only grants 
> permission to do things which would otherwise not be allowed.

Again, what makes you think that this grant is in any way irrevocable?
Even if we suppose that existing licensees (those who have already copied
or distributed) are grandfathered, I see no possibility that new licensees can
come into existence based on a grant that the grantor (or his successor
in title) has explicitly revoked.

IANAL, TINLA, despite the use of jargon above.

-- 
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy?      John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
             thou hast given away:      jcowan at reutershealth.com
      That thou wast born with.         http://www.reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3