This weekend's witch-hunt

[Bruce Perens]

Rob Landley wrote:
> The GPL has an anti-severability clause.  Their license declaration does not.
Sorry, this is way out of left field. A court has the power to sever a
license term if and only if it finds the license term to be unlawful.
That is the only way it happens. Third parties like you and me do not
have the power to arbitrarily sever terms that copyright holders have
put on their own property.
> (And if it did, you couldn't drop support for GPLv2 at some point in future,
Technical support? I guess that's just unclear wording. Once you put
something out under GPLv2, everyone has the right to use GPLv2 on that
particular piece, forever. There is no termination. You can't withdraw
it. But you don't have to help them in any way, if that's what you mean
by support.
> plus it would raise interesting questions of having to satisfy the conditions 
> of _both_ licenses, when GPLv2 and GPLv3 aren't compatible.)
>   
A complete work would have to be licensable under one license or the
other, not the logical union of the terms of both.
> The copy that went through  _me_ had other redundant permission grants 
> stripped off of it.  There are clean sources elsewhere (in the same 
> directory, even) that have additional license grants, but that's not my 
> problem.
>   
I really don't think this is the case.
> Would you like to go talk to the SFLC directly?
>   
I know them, talk with Eben regularly, had lunch with the entire staff
sometime last year. Since you insist, I will inquire with them.

    Thanks

    Bruce