coordinated compliance efforts addresses the issues of this thread

[Felipe Contreras]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Vic <busybox at beer.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Sorry to jump in on a conversation towards its end, but...
>
>> A right is not something a person (e.g. a developer) can make it go
>> away on a whim, and that is the case for what the GPL gives to users.
>
> ... that is completely wrong.
>
> Copyright Law (in whatever form) enshrines the exclusive rights held by a
> Copyright Owner.
>
> The GPL is a licence from that owner which transfers non-exclusive rights
> to the user. Such transfer is permanent so long as the licence is not
> revoked.
>
> Under the terms of the GPL, the licence can only be revoked for
> non-compliance. Thus the developer *cannot* make those rights go away on a
> whim. And "rights" is the correct word here - it is the term used in the
> copyright legislation with which I'm familiar (US and UK).

The copyright owner can change the license at any point in time. If
you sue a company for violating the GPL, I can grant them permission
to use my software with another license, and you can't do anything
about it. The license is a contract between the licensor (me, the
developer), and the licensee (the software user, the company), the end
user has absolutely nothing to say in the matter. If the company is
violating the GPL, the user wouldn't even see the license anywhere,
not in an EULA, nowhere.

-- 
Felipe Contreras