from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F06440A8
	for <jm@localhost>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 05:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:07:48 +0100 (IST)
from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6V8xl212137 for
    <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:59:47 +0100
from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24776; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:56:24 +0100
from milexc01.maxtor.com ([134.6.205.206]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24739 for <ilug@linux.ie>; Wed,
    31 Jul 2002 09:56:18 +0100
by milexc01.maxtor.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
    id <PC8XVTS3>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:56:07 +0100
"'Patton, Tony'" <tony.patton@nwifhe.ac.uk>,
	Irish LUG <ilug@linux.ie>
from quoted-printable to 8bit by lugh.tuatha.org id
    JAA24739
From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Wed Jul 31 10:07:52 2002

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by example.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFED716F49
	for <zzzz@localhost>; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 10:52:38 +0100 (IST)
from lugh.tuatha.org (postfix@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45])
    by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g98MeVK04957 for
    <zzzz-ilug@example.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 23:40:31 +0100
No, hits=-30.6 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
	      REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,SIGNATURE_LONG_DENSE,
	      T_NONSENSE_FROM_00_10,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT
	version=2.50-cvs

Quoting Paul Linehan (plinehan@yahoo.com):
> The point here is that (under French law) the author can change the
> terms of the licence arbitarily. This is because any granting of
> rights by an author must be clearly delimited in terms of how long,
> where, to whom, dates and times.
The GPL and similar licences are explicitly permanent grants of rights
attached to an instance of his work.  (The other stuff mentioned
concerns contract law, e.g., the required element of privity, etc.)
> In the absence of such limitations, the original author has the right
> to change his software back to closed on a whim.
No, the author has the right to issue _additional_ instances under a
different licence, such as a proprietary ("closed" [sic]) licence.
> Rick Moen makes the point that it is not a sale but rather a granting
> of rights which are not default.
>
> See the bit about even the granting of rights by an author having to
> be explicitly specified - under French law.
The analysis, here and elsewhere, concerns contract law.  This isn't
contract law.
This isn't the first time copyright attorneys have stumbled on this
subject.  I'm sure it won't be the last.
--
Cheers,              "The front line of defense against such sophisticated
Rick Moen            viruses is a continually evolving computer operating
rick@linuxmafia.com  system that attracts the efforts of eager software
developers."  -- Bill Gates
--
Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie