coordinated compliance efforts addresses the issues of this thread

[Felipe Contreras]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Vic <busybox at beer.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> The copyright owner can change the license at any point in time.
>
> He can. But that change is not retrospective (or retroactive if you're on
> that side of the Atlantic). He *cannot* remove the rights of someone who
> is using his code under a licence he has previously granted so long as the
> user remains in compliance.

All right, I grant an irrevocable privilege, a right, to the software
users, as in, developers who make use of my code, *not* the end users
who might be getting it through a company selling a product.

>> 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.
>
> That is true, unless you have transferred copyright ownership. But so
> what? As copyright owner, you're allowed to dual-licence your own code[1],
> and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the GPL.
>
>> 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.
>
> This is completely untrue. the end-user *must* receive a copy of the GPL
> (that's a condition of compliance) and is free to accept or reject that
> licence as he sees fit.

I'm not talking about the GPL, I'm talking in general.

In the specific case of the GPL, the company might be violating the
GPL, so the end user would not see the license, but that's a problem
between me, and the company; the licensor, and the licensee.

>> If the company is violating the GPL, the user wouldn't even see the
>> license anywhere, not in an EULA, nowhere.
>
> No, but then the violator would not be licenced to redistribute. This is
> simple copyright infringement,

This is a problem between the licensor and the licensee, if I don't
have a problem, and they don't have a problem, then there is no
problem. Ultimately I can change the license anyway.

> If an entity is prepared to ignore copyright legislation, no amount of
> messing about with the words of the licence will make a blind bit of
> difference.

Copyright legislation is meant to protect the author, if the author
doesn't have a problem with the way his/her software is being used,
then there's no problem.

The final end user becomes involved *only* if the company allows it,
not if the company is infringing, which is not a problem if the
original author doesn't have a problem.

-- 
Felipe Contreras