Language question

[Mark Rafn]

> 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.

On Wed, 7 May 2003, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.

I purposely ignored this possibilty, and should have said so.  Some claim 
that, in the absence of a contract, there can be no irrevocable grant of 
permission.  I hope this is not the case, as there is really no such thing 
as free software if this is true.

I'm also very surprised it hasn't happened, if it's possible to revoke 
such a grant of permission.

NOTE: IANAL, and I'm probably insane in trying to apply common-sense to
legal systems.

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

If it's true that open-source licenses are revocable, you're right.  It's 
still not an obligation on either the original copyright holder or his 
assignees.  The scenario given would apply to the original author just as 
well as his heirs.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3