3 ms·
I remember PJ mentioned it, very dismissively, in a Groklaw post[1] and its comments in 2008. I made the same suggestion[2] you did about 203(b)(1), but another
by antiterra 13y ago
I remember PJ mentioned it, very dismissively, in a Groklaw post[1] and its comments in 2008. I made the same suggestion[2] you did about 203(b)(1), but another anonymous commenter pointed out that further works based on the source might be problematic.
[1] http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2006062204552163 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060622045521...
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2006062204552163&title=The%20Revocable%20GPL%20in%20the%20U.S.&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=667899#c668374 http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060622...
- nitrogen 13y agoIt sounds like an area of copyright law that is in desperate need of clarification from the legislature before the courts become involved, considering that modern copyrighted works are almost always "licensed" as a matter of usage, not just as part of a distribution and publishing agreement. Or maybe that was the intent of the software vendors all along -- revoke all licenses after 35 years so we have no choice but to upgrade ;-).