Umm, this is interesting..

[Darren Blaber]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

nobodyO at web.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i don't think that it is patent related because there is not hint
> that a patent is involved and a patent is only a commercial right;
> it's only the right that no other can use the patented thing
> commercially. If you use patents private or otherwise not
> commercial, you are not affected. An example is the MP3 patent:
> Only producers of MP3 players are affected; you don't need a
> license to hear or produce MP3s non-commerciall.
>
> Greets
>
>
>> Being a conspiracy theorist ...
>>
>> He could have been head hunted for his work on this, but not
>> willing to partake in opensource his new employer may want the
>> code free from opensource hassle...
>>
>> This is also putting oil on the fire of anti opensource lobbyists
>> (right down the alley "with open source there is no one to take
>> to court with disputes" they now can say "see what happens if you
>> go down the road of opensource? In the midle they're able to
>> revoke the GPL and leave you with a fine mess")
>>
>>> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:22:12 +0100 From:
>>> arnoud at engelfriet.net To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
>>> Subject: Re: Umm, this is interesting..
>>>
>>> Ralf Friedl wrote:
>>>> I consider the assumption that he wants to cover his own ass
>>>>  inconsistent with the paragraph where he writes:
>>>>
>>>>> As sole author of both the atscap and the pchdtvr
>>>>> codebases, the licenses under the GPL were granted at my
>>>>> sole discretion and the licenses under the GPL are now
>>>>> hereby revoked at my sole discretion.
>>> If the author's concern is patent infringement, the statements
>>>  are consistent. He can be sole author of software which
>>> infringes on someone else's patent.
>>>
>>> Arnoud
>>>
>>> -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney -
>>> Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained
>>> for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook:
>>> http://blog.iusmentis.com/
>>>
>
>
I don't know the legality of this, or even if this is on topic, but
someone has mirrored the package, it is at
http://mathesar.declassify.info/atscap.html . He says "In response to
the atscap developer revoking the GPL on his software, I am now
putting up this list of mirrors for his software. Per licenses stated
in the headers of the source code, I have the right to apply any later
version of the GPL. This includes GPLv3, which explicitly forbids the
revoking of the GPL license.". Is this legal?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHnrOLFNfTUrxudD0RAlHJAJ9zk2B56q7bdDukXxENHch/XKAAAQCgjCSA
8QULz3nDtwH0LwJnX2Y/m+g=
=/tLk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----