Automatic GPL termination

[Chris Travers]

On 9/17/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com] wrote:
> > One just can't be a party to a contract that
> > isn't even drafted yet.
>
> Untrue. The licence is published, immutable, and publicly verifiable
> (unlike
> almost all contracts that are privately written). Because the contract is
> public, it can't be negociated between parties (it can only be accepted as
> a
> whole or rejected as a whole). For this reason the GPLpreexists as a
> written
> contract between the author and the public (this including every other
> user). It has already been accepted as valid by a very large number of
> users
> (and authors using it), much enough to prove that the contract is valid,
> because millions of people could assert that it exists in its current
> form.
>

I don't think you are contradicting Alexander here.  If I agree to make my
work available under the GPL v3 or later, this does not mean that sometime
after this, if the FSF adopts a new license with additional requirements on
me that I am automatically bound by them.  GPL vX or later does not mean
"subject to additional obligations that the FSF may, from time to time, deem
appropriate."

In short I don't think there is much disagreement on this point.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070917/cd5c62cc/attachment.html>