4 ms·
In the scenario I've constructed, yes. The trick is that you don't need to threaten everybody, just any fork that gains traction and might be a viable open sou
by scj 3y ago
In the scenario I've constructed, yes.
The trick is that you don't need to threaten everybody, just any fork that gains traction and might be a viable open source project.
Otherwise stated, you don't go after every user, just the competition.
- zeeg 3y agoI believe you’re suggesting revocation means something else. Once the software is released under a license you’ve created a legal contract granting those terms. You can’t (at least in the referenced licenses) rewind and take away the license grant. Sure you can fork it and license new code in a different way, but that’s not the same thing.
- tonyarkles 3y ago> Once the software is released under a license you’ve created a legal contract granting those terms. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve followed the “is it a license or is it a contract” thing for 25 years now. One important part of the confusion here is that a contract requires mutual consideration; unilateral “contracts” aren’t contracts at all. The long-term argument is that the source code is subject to copyright which implicitly would not allow distribution; the license is what grants additional permissions on top of what copyright does and doesn’t allow, and thus probably could be revoked.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y agoWe as an industry and community have settled on the irrevocably of Open Source licenses. I doubt that any court would rule against this notion today. Too much would be at stake.