Automatic GPL termination

[Alexander Terekhov]

Just to clarify (in response to off-band inquiries)...

On 9/14/07, Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> (Regarding CeCILL license upgrades and mutation to the GPL, including
> future versions, if contaminated)
>
> > The distributor acts as a proxy in the name of the original author.
>
> Oh really? Ha! Are you rich, Philippe?
>
> IBM to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:
> "Wallace's argument that "no charge" constitutes a "minimum" price for
> purposes of antitrust analysis is untenable. A "minimum" price
> agreement requires that any price below that price would violate the
> agreement. In the unlikely event a licensor wished to license
> modifications to software under the GPL at a price below zero (i.e.,
> an effective negative price by paying the licensee to take the
> license), such would in no way violate the GPL."
>
> What if I'm gonna start licensing *in your name* (acting as your
> proxy) at royalty rate of say minus one euro per act of copying,
> Philippe? How soon are you going to become bankrupt? Just curious.

I meant (hypothetically) future GPL version 6.6.6 or some such that
would prescribe negative royalties. According to Philippe' logic, a
distributor (me) will rightfully bankrupt him with no questions asked
acting as a proxy in his name switching to new contract.

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                                    -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor