[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    RE: Wine License (Thought on copyrights)
From:       Patrik Stridvall <ps () leissner ! se>
Date:       1999-11-30 9:31:38
[Download RAW message or body]

[Perhaps I should point of that in all my e-mail:s concerning
legal trickery, I have been playing the devil's advocate
and that what I said is not always the same as my actual
opinion of our course of action and of course since IANAL
this is not legal advice]

> > This is especially true if the code is removed by request.
> IMHO your last sentence doesn't really count.
> Removing code by request doesn't help, as it already got 
> published at least
> *once* under the new, probably less restrictive license, and thus
> it can be easily used by other people as they have access to 
> the version
> that contained the code under the new license.

He really can't ask us to remove the old distributions since
we already has his permission, the old license, to
distribute it.

Legally all modifications to Wine of each author 
remains under the old license until he/she gives permission
for the license change and this can of course be made
retroactively for all old versions as well.

This must of course be pointed in each new distribution
along with a list of people that has accepted the license
change. In this list we should point out that since acceptance
can be retroactive they should look at the list in the latest
version.

In short a disgruntled author really can't ask for more
that removal of his code in the latest version,
all the old versions is safe and if somebody else
take code made by people who isn't listed in the
"authors whom has accepted the license change" file,
it is their problem. However I believe they are safe to
if they remove the code on request in a new version.

> That's correct, isn't it ?
> 
> So we might have a problem...

Partly yes, but that is not really a problem.

At last, one _very_ important thing, we _must_ do a
_reasonable_ attempt to contact _all_ previous authors
otherwise we have acted in _bad_faith_, which makes
quite difference legally.


=========================================================================

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]