Language question

[John Cowan]

Mark Rafn scripsit:

> 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.

In general, there can be such a thing as implicit licenses.  If it is well-known
that I tolerate people trespassing on my land, an attempt to sue *you* for
doing so in particular will probably not cut the mustard.  So if you didn't
know that I had revoked the license, you'd be justified in continuing to
rely on it.

Furthermore, if the author transfers the copyright to a corporation whose
chartered purpose is to maintain the license, then the corporation would be
unable to revoke it through lack of appropriate powers.

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

We are still in the first generation of free software authors.

> 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.

I think the point of the "obligation" here was whether transferring the
copyright in free software carried with it the obligation not to revoke the
license; clearly not.

IANAL, TINLA.

-- 
"There is no real going back.  Though I         John Cowan
may come to the Shire, it will not seem         jcowan at reutershealth.com
the same; for I shall not be the same.          http://www.reutershealth.com
I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth,      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a long burden.  Where shall I find rest?"           --Frodo
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3