Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)
Groklaw has the scoop on the revocability of the GPL. Someone out there has been claiming that they are revoking the GPL for code that has already been released. "If you change your mind and don't want to use the GPL any more, you can stop and use something else on new code going forward, and you can dual license your own code, but you can't redo the past and pull back GPL'd code. That's one of the beauties of the GPL, actually, that even if some individual gets a bug up his nose, or dies and his copyright is inherited by his wife who doesn't care about the GPL and wants to take it proprietary, or just to imagine for a moment, a Megacorp were to buy off a GPL programmer and get him to pretend to revoke the GPL with threats, and even if it were to initiate a SCO-like bogo-lawsuit, it doesn't matter ultimately as to what you can and can't do with the GPL."
(Log in to post comments)
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)- how about SAPDB/MAXDB? Posted Jan 28, 2008 17:25 UTC (Mon) by cherev_emes (guest, #50183) [Link] This article and message seem most timely and befitting because SAP recently returned SAPDB/MAXDB to closed source after they terminated their relationship with MySQL. I wonder if SAP will be given a pass for this, or if someone will ask SAP to justify themselves. After all, some of the best tested and operating database code ever written for and running on Linux was just removed from public access. I would think this deserves an explanation.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)- how about SAPDB/MAXDB? Posted Jan 29, 2008 3:53 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] Surely MAXDB 7.6 with the GNU GPL copying permission notice is still available somewhere?
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)- how about SAPDB/MAXDB? Posted Jan 29, 2008 4:06 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] I found the last GPL release of MAXDB at <http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/mysql/Downloads/...>.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 18:14 UTC (Mon) by rene.herman (guest, #48617) [Link] Scoop? This is completely and utterly obvious...
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 18:32 UTC (Mon) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Well I don't think they mean or meant "scoop" as in to be the first to break a story but rather the "scoop" as in; here is the low down, ie what the GPL says about licensing terms and what you can and cannot do.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 18:37 UTC (Mon) by rene.herman (guest, #48617) [Link] I see. Non-native language issue then I guess...
The Revocable GPL in the US (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 6:12 UTC (Tue) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] The real scoop is further down in the comments. US copyright law has some "notwithstanding" elements that allow the owner/owners of the copyright to revoke, provided proper notice, after 35-40 years. Notice is to be given not less than two, but not more than ten years from the date of revocation. This is a gloss, obviously -- read the discussion for better details, or the relevant USC. The link for the comment is here, but the best analysis is under "Holy cow, it actually IS legal". You can follow along in Title 17, chapter 2, section 203 of US Code, "Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author."
The Revocable GPL in the US (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 11:53 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] That's another, and more devastating, sort of revocation. It says that all the existing licenses are void, and any chosen subset of the existing licensees have no more right to distribute. It's different from choosing not to issue new licenses, which is what is under discussion here.
The Revocable GPL in the US (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:55 UTC (Tue) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] Depends on how "published" is interpreted. My guess would be that a new release would be regarded no differently than a revised edition of a book, but I'm not sure how that is regarded either. Since revisions and reprints are considered distinct on the copyright page, I would guess that revisions are considered distinct publications, but that is not certain to me.If I am correct, however, then RMS could re-license the first releases of Emaacs or GCC, but as the documents make it clear only the holder of copyright can change the license, nobody else could. There is almost no other Open Source software that is the required 35+ years old. There is another consideration. The GPL would seem to imply that if a person were to exploit this technicality and re-license GPL software such that it was no longer GPLed in any form, then that person would be barred from ever obtaining or using any other GPL software. The GPL may be self-protecting in that seems to offer no rights to a person who has previously performed non-free actions on any other GPL software, whether or not that non-free action was legal, except in the case of wholly internal changes. If I'm right, then even if this action was legal, subsequent obtaining and use of GPL software violates the license of that subsequent software through the license's consideration of past activity.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 19:10 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I think there's a bit of wishful thinking mixed in. It seems to me that things are a little more complicated. Yes, the copyright owner can retroactively revoke GPL. However, it might not have quite the effect the owner would hope. Technically, if you haven't got a copy yet, you can still get one from somebody who got it while it was GPL. Having got one, though, you *don't* have the right to redistribute it. Anybody else who wants a copy must get it from one of the original licensees. For any widely used code, there are plenty of original licensees, e.g. Debian and Red Hat. Still, that makes distribution much less convenient, for the scrupulous. Practically, the code must then be handled much like qmail before it was placed in the public domain, or like the MS "core fonts". If you have changes, it doesn't suffice to get the sources from a licensed source, apply your patch, build, and then redistribute. Instead, you have to distribute a "download, patch, and build" script. Causing this degree of inconvenience might satisfy some owners enough to motivate revocation. I'm no lawyer.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 19:36 UTC (Mon) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] I think you should at the minimum read what PJ has to say about it or better reread the GPL. Unless a license specifically addresses "retroactive" changes and AFAIK the GPL does not allow it. All a licensor can do if they want to change their terms is to implement them from they day notice is given on forward. I like you am not a lawyer and neither is PJ, however in her case I would lend much more credence to what she says.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 21:11 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] PJ said that she ran it by a lawyer, and the confidence level was pretty much certain that this action is not allowed by the license text. Since ensuring that code freedom, forever, was one of Mr. Stallman's explicit goals in writing the GPL, don't you think that this rather obvious case would be pretty well covered? I'm not sure how the author in question missed this.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 21:31 UTC (Mon) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Yes your quite right in the research PJ did, I should have mentioned that. Like you I thought the samething and that was before visiting Groklaw. Sure, he can change the terms/licensing from this day forward but I cannot fathom what legal angle he thinks will allow it to be retroactive. As Davy Jones said and I paraphrase; "The cat is out of the bag Mr. Turner".
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 22:35 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Which part of "The most you can do is stop granting new licenses" did you skip reading? The owner "granting new licenses" is what is supposed to happen when a licensee further distributes the code. If the owner elects to "stop granting new licenses", then the recipients of that code don't have a license to distribute. Q.E.D. I enjoy wishful thinking as much as the next person, but I try to avoid it.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 22:54 UTC (Mon) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] The point is that the licenses already granted can't be revoked. Those licenses are not contracts between people -- they give permission to redistribute to anyone who meets the conditions in the license. The only time the granted permissions can be revoked, which happens automatically, is when those conditions are violated.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 0:28 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Sorry, no. Each person who gets the software gets a license grant. 100 people, 100 license grants. Each license grant comes directly from the owner, automatically according to the published terms. After the owner elects to stop issuing licenses, then that's how many there are. Those 100 licensees can keep distributing until such time as they violate the terms, then they lose the grant. It might be nice if the licenses actually attached to the software, but the law applies to people. Only a person can receive a license grant. I am not a lawyer.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 2:29 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] The GPL is a legaly-binding promise anyone getting downstream code is automatically granted a license to do all sorts of stuff with it by the original authors. So you're right the licenses stem from the authors not the intermediaries. However given these authors made the promise to automatically grant them in the future with no time limit, they can't elect to stop issuing them later. The law is very careful about people not reneging on past promises.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 12:12 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The law is very *complicated* about people reneging on past promises. What was promised? To whom? In exchange for what? For how long? There are volumes and volumes of case law exploring these questions in thousands of different circumstances, with sqrt(n) contradictory answers. "In exchange for what?" makes a big difference in court. You're not usually obliged to continue giving somebody something for free just because you did so in the past, even if you said you would: This year: "sure, pick my apples, otherwise they go to waste." Next year: "my insurance company says I can't let you climb my tree any more." Then there's transfer of ownership. "Yes, the previous landowner let you pick his apples. But now I own the land. I never promised you anything. Take a hike." The law doesn't respond very well to wishful thinking.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 12:54 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] The term you are avoiding mention is called promissory estoppal. The GPL is not only a license fundamentally it's also a contract. Beyond that the author of the code can refuse to grant licenses on NEW code he adds to the original code but he CANNOT revoke the GPL. As the commentators to your original post have tried to point out when you distribute the code under the GPL you give every license the right to distribute and sub-license the code to anyone they please. The GPL has this provision for the simple reason that Stallman had the original goal in writing the license such that people couldn't come back and take the code away after it was GPL'd. Again, every original license to the code can issue new licenses to the code without the authors permission, in addition if they distribute the code in binary format they are obligated to provide every sub-license with source code at request for a minimum of 3 years from issuance from the binaries. You need to go back and re-read what PJ wrote because you didn't understand.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 15:49 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Look, ponies, ponies, everywhere! > "... when you distribute the code under the GPL you give every license the right to distribute and sub-license the code to anyone they please." Nobody can "sub-license" but the copyright owner. That's even acknowledged in the text of the GPL. The FSF requires copyright assignments for everything they distribute. It's a lot of trouble for them and for everybody else, and they wouldn't be doing it without compelling reasons. One effect of the practice is that no one can revoke the license on any FSF code, in any jurisdiction, except where the law makes specific exception. That seems like a good thing. (The specific exception I know about is the 35-year U.S. rule.) There's lots of case law around estoppel, and laches, and moonbeams. You can say the GPL is a contract, but that doesn't make it one. Its authors say specifically that it's not one, and that they were very careful not to make it one, for compelling reasons. Contract law is a cesspit.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 19:18 UTC (Tue) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] I am unconvinced that this is the FSF's reasoning. I've never heard anyone associated with the FSF mention it -- indeed, they give other reasons[1] -- and the FSF accepts either a copyright assignment *or* a disclaimer of copyright interest/public domain assignment. The latter is hardly *less* problematic than the GPL vis a vis revocability and other such ugly corners of the law. Maybe they *should* be worried about the scenario you raise, but are they? [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 20:42 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The FSF has very scrupulously never addressed the topic in public at all, to my knowledge. Eben Moglen didn't reply to my questions on the topic. My opinion is that it will take explicit legislation before we can have any clarity on the subject. In the meantime, we only need to worry about a few specific packages that have been retracted, and even there we can limit our actions to worrying. If the copyright owner starts bothering people, we have a known workaround. In Linux, we might find a driver must be pulled out, and maybe distributed separately.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 2:30 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link] Those 100 people have licenses, and that license permits them to distribute it to more people, under the GPL, and so on and so forth. Yes, you can't get new copies *from the original author*. But who cares, get them from a single person who did get it from the author a ways back. In this way a GPLed source can never be revoked, _unless_ somehow all copies vanish from the internet.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 7:54 UTC (Tue) by charlieb (subscriber, #23340) [Link] > In this way a GPLed source can never be revoked, _unless_ somehow > all copies vanish from the internet. Which, from just a little searching, appears to have happened here. Anyone have a URL?
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 9:37 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Can't happen. Just need one person who has a copy stashed away somewhere.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 11:37 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I agree. And if nobody has any copies of the GPLed software, then nobody has the right to ask for source code, and the GPL isn't really a factor.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 14:36 UTC (Fri) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Have you raised this concern with the FSF? If it's a legitimate concern, (a) they need to hear about it, and (b) they must have thought of it themselves. However, I think you're wrong, and here's why: The GPL, as applied by the author of a work to that work at the point of distribution, allows anyone who receives the work to redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. Not to relicense it under the GPL, but merely to redistribute it under those terms. The terms of the GPL, of course, allow any recipient of the software to redistribute it under the terms of the GPL. There's an infinite loop built in there, and that's what stops it being a one-step-only process. If the first redistribution is possible, the inherent loop makes every subsequent one allowable.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 23:04 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I suggest searching "begging the question" on Google.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 8:35 UTC (Tue) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] I think your confusion may stem from an odd interpretation of the word "license". A "license" is not a unit of permission giving a single person the right to run a piece of software on a single machine, though in the proprietary world that may be how it is in practice most frequently used. A "license" is just a statement granting some permissions to do stuff with your copyrighted work. In this case the license promises all recipients permission to redistribute the work under the same license terms. That promise can't be arbitrarily revoked.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 20:43 UTC (Mon) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "Yes, the copyright owner can retroactively revoke GPL. However, it might not have quite the effect the owner would hope. Technically, if you haven't got a copy yet, you can still get one from somebody who got it while it was GPL. Having got one, though, you *don't* have the right to redistribute it." Are you sure about that? From v2 at least: "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." The license original given says that they do get it from the original licensor whenever a licensee redistributes the Program or any work based on the Program. The original licensor can stop distributing copies with the GPL and instead distribute copies with another license, but I don't see how they can retroactively cancel the licenses they promised to give as per 6. Am I missing something? all the best, drew
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 22:28 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The key is that the copyright owner isn't bound by the license. The GPL expresses an intent to issue new licenses, but the owner can change that intent, and stop issuing new licenses. The original licensees have a reasonable expectation to be able to continue operating under the original license, because there's no reliable way to communicate changes to them and no obligation to check back. Still, the original licensee can't give you a license to distribute, only the owner can. If there's any question about what your license is, you'd better check with the owner. When you do, the owner says, "No, that was then. I'm not giving you a license to distribute". Of course you can use the code without distributing it (except in certain crazy jurisdictions where reading a file into memory counts as distribution!) but you never got a distribution license. So, early licensees can continue distributing it, but when you get it, you get it under a new license, on whatever terms the owner chooses to (or is obliged to) offer right now. It's possible that in some jurisdictions, an owner could make a binding public promise to continue issuing licenses under the old terms, and in some of those, the license itself would count as such a public promise. I don't know which jurisdictions those are, if any. It seems subject to interpretation. Would such a promise bind the new owner, if the ownership was transferred? More interpretation. I don't like this state of affairs, but I like wishful thinking even less. There are practical reasons why the FSF takes copyright assignments. I am no lawyer.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 0:26 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] There is no mention of "getting it under a new license". The section clearly states that "the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." In other words, once an author has distributed a body of code under the GPL, they are indeed bound to honor the license, and the license itself, by its express terms and conditions, grants any recipient of the code the same rights and responsibilities as the first licensee. This is the way the GPL is designed. It is not designed to ensure the freedom of the author; it is designed to ensure the freedom of the software. This is done because it was pretty obvious to Mr. Stallman that this situation was likely to eventually come about, that some author would (with or without malicious intent) decide to attempt to revoke their licensing of code under the GPL, and this would be a very disruptive and counterproductive possibility, given that the free software ecosystem depends on the freedom of all of the code therein, and the reliable stability of that freedom. So it was covered in the license, if you read it in its plain and obvious sense and intent.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 0:57 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] We might like if the GPL could override statutory and case law, but the courts have their own preference, and they win. The question is, can you write something in a license that overrules what you decide later? How about somebody else to whom you transfer the copyright? It's not a simple area of law. To pretend otherwise is wishful thinking, which doesn't usually impress judges much.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 2:14 UTC (Tue) by danielhedblom (guest, #47307) [Link] I suggest you talk a long session with a lawyer on this. I have never ever heard of someone succeding in revoking a license if terms in said license hasnt been reached. The GPL license is very clear and do not contain any terms that can be used to revoke the license from the issuers point. The only thing the issuer can do is to dual license or license new bits under a different license. You cant take something you have already given away or sold back without something explicitly stating you are entitled to do so in a contract/license.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 8:54 UTC (Tue) by charlieb (subscriber, #23340) [Link] > The only thing the issuer can do is to dual license or license > new bits under a different license. The issuer can also issue new (different) licenses for the same bits.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 2:35 UTC (Tue) by grantingram (subscriber, #18390) [Link] The question is, can you write something in a license that overrules what you decide later?Well one would hope so! To look at it the other way: you are suggesting that you can't rely on what is written in the license to describe what you can do with the code. Are you supposed to check with every copyright holder, every time you redistribute something just to see if they have changed their mind?
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:33 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I "would hope so" too, but hope is not the same as law. I can be utterly confident that code whose copyrights are held by the FSF remains free to distribute. For other code, I'm not sure.
Alternate Realities Posted Jan 29, 2008 16:52 UTC (Tue) by grantingram (subscriber, #18390) [Link] In your world where you can't rely on the license to describe the license for the code, how do you work out what the license is? If you are running a server offering software for download how often should you check to see if the authors have changed their minds? Daily? Hourly? We shall just have to agree to disagree on this one..
Alternate Realities Posted Jan 29, 2008 19:47 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] If you're ultimately scrupulous, you check before you put the code on your server. If you're practical, you just see if it's one of the packages that has been retracted, and see if you got a copy before that happened. If it is one, but you got in under the wire, you just change the license text you distribute with the package. If is is one, but you missed the boat, then you don't post it. Maybe you post a download-patch-build script that gets it from somebody who (still) has the right to distribute.
Alternate Realities Posted Jan 30, 2008 3:57 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] 'Somebody who still has the right to distribute'... however, they only have the right to distribute the work under the GPL - which explicitly says that you must distribute the work giving the recipient all the rights that you have. In your scenario, where person A 'still' has the right to distribute the software to person B but B does not have the right to distribute it further, the consequence is that A cannot distribute the software at all, since he cannot do so in compliance with the GPL.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 14:42 UTC (Fri) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Right, that's your angle. You really should have stated that up-front. It's all very well saying "I am not a lawyer" at the end of every post arguing that you're right anyway, but without actually having a proper legal opinion to offer, all you're doing with your insistence that your interpretation must be correct is FUDding (in the most literal sense). Stop it, please. If you aren't 100% sure of your ground (and your pains to point out that you aren't a lawyer suggest that you're at the very least aware that you *shouldn't* be), then you're far better advised to raise the question than to insist that you know the answer.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 23:11 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I did state it up front: I don't know how serious the problem is. What I am certain of is that everybody who says they do know is either lying or deluded.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 3:49 UTC (Tue) by jmayer (subscriber, #595) [Link] I'm not sure everyone is talking about the same things here: - If the author creates new code, then the new code doesn't have to be covered by GPL. - If someone already got the (old) code with the GPL license then they have and maintain the right to modify and or redistribute that code and that right cannot be taken away by simply revoking the license.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 11:48 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Yes. But there is a third case: - If someone did not already get the old code, then after the revocation, their rights are different from those of somebody who already got it before the revocation.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:00 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] NO. The licensee has the right to redistribute and sub-license. The license is fundamentally also a contract and you can't go around willy-nilly canceling licenses and terms of that license any time you want. Can Microsoft go back and change the EULA after you have already agreed to it? Can the RIAA come in and revoke your purchase of music? You are being absolutely absurd on this point.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:27 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] ... and ponies for everybody.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 14:59 UTC (Wed) by joey (subscriber, #328) [Link] Ok, enough talk about ponies. Nathan, I would be interested if you developed your argument that GPL licenses to existing code can be revoked into a complete article that I could read and think about, perferably one that cites the law, and has been run past some lawyers. .. After all, if you're right, we have a gigantic gaping hole, and much of the GPLed software we're currently using won't be free in ten years, or 20 years, or whatever. If that's the case, I need to find something else to dedicate my time to. In the meantime, replying to every post here with stuff about ponies is not a good thing for your be dedicating *your* time to, IMHO.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 18:00 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I am certainly right that we *might* have a gigantic gaping hole. That is, every lawyer I've asked has said the same thing: "I don't know. Nobody knows." If there's one thing I hate more than license uncertainty, it's self-important know-it-alls who claim to know things the experts don't -- particularly when what they claim to know is obviously just what they *wish* were true. Even worse are the ones who claim to know things that don't even make sense. Wishful thinking is cancer on more than license discussions. It makes bad code, bad politics, bad science, bad medical treatment, and bad public policy. I really appreciate you, zotz, atai, njs, and a few others for sticking to the facts. Even at worst, I don't know any reason to think that much of Free software won't be Free in ten or twenty years. A few packages might be taken non-free, but even then there's nothing to do until somebody gets told to stop distributing them. My posting here is not in defense of license revocation (I'd like to see that made difficult), but in the interest of factual analysis and reporting. If any new copyright legislation comes up, I'd like to see some explicit language in it to clarify the matter, so we're not so subject to the whims of random courts.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 20:42 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] Everything in the field of law is speculation. There are quite simply no guarantees in any court. Judges and juries can misread law, laws can be written such that the meaning is lost. Until an issue is tested at the level of the supreme court (with a very clear ruling) nothing is certain, and even after a ruling or a vague ruling at the Supreme there can be another case that throws the previous ruling out the door. No lawyer worth his salt would even try to make an assertion other than "I don't know" in anything but the most mundane and common portion of case law.The problem with your "theory" is it's highly unlikely for someone to be able to revoke the issuing of new licenses under the GPL. The license has specific terms, that are NOT in doubt, that give the authority to any licensor the ability to sub-license and create new licenses on any copies made. 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.The theory you want to argue allows the author to go in and cancel section 6 of the GPLv2, which wipes out section 1, 4 and 2B and probably more. This is NOT supported in case law and if it were true the entire software industry would already be gone as companies revoked portions of licenses and then demanded new licensing fees. As I said at it's heart, regardless of how much the FSF wants to avoid it, the GPL includes with it's license an implied contract. A contract that ascertains rights to the licensee and licensor that are not allowed without a license under US copyright law. This implied contract provides promises that the courts view as consideration to each party, a breach of the license would also breach the implied contract and anyone that had a license and had relied on those promises in the license could seek financial damages or a waiver of the owners claims. A term referred to by the courts of promissory estoppal is the recognized term to describe an entity's reliance on those promises being used as justification to legally prevent the owners actions. The GPL specifically grants the rights (not IMPLIED, it's explicitly granted) to every licensee the right to not only issue new licenses automatically with every copy, but to copy, modify, merge, divide and sub-license the original code. By taking what PJ said out of context you have made this wild claim that the author can somehow decide to issue no new licenses on the existing code (when in fact her statement said the author can refuse to make any new revisions of the code GPL and can license the code to anyone else under any other license). The GPL specifically prevents the author from being able to stop distribution of the existing code because it grants the right to issue new licenses to any licensee of the code (See Section 6). To allow what you claim allows the author to cancel a term of the license, which is NOT supported in case law nor the law. There is no such right given to copyright holders, the only exception given is the right to cancel all licenses at 35-40 years. Which has yet to be tested in the supreme. Yes in our court system anything is possible, yes your theory could happen some day in some court. But any such ruling could have no chance of standing for the damage it would do to the system would be immeasurable. The entire copyright industry would be thrown a huge curveball as any copyright holder could then cancel terms of any license without consequence. And if you can cancel individual terms, you can cancel the whole license. Just think, movie companies could revoke your right to watch the movie after 8pm or while eating popcorn. Music companies could decide that music played in stores has to be accompanied by a message every song that talks about how illegal copying music is. You can argue your wild theory all you want I guess, but the reason Eben didn't respond to your question is because quite frankly your question is stupid. Heck keep talking about ponies, and how everyone is wrong and ignorant, but you of course, along with your wild theory, maybe you can convince some more people that it's possible to clip out license terms and that everyone should stop developing GPL software as a result. Cheerio! Have a great day.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 2:01 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] As I said at it's heart, regardless of how much the FSF wants to avoid it, the GPL includes with it's license an implied contract.This is unlikely to be true in England (Scotland has quite different law in this area and I don't know it). You can't contract with some other party, even impliedly when you don't know who they are and have no idea that they've accepted the contract or even that they exist: but copyright licenses can be granted in that situation perfectly well if the license says they can be. If you reject a copyright license, you can't redistribute the work. What would the effect of rejecting your implied license be? If it's not the same, something is probably wrong with your reasoning. (IANAL.)
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 7:13 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] Come on, back to basics... Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball. Co. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. had no idea Carlill had accepted their offer. In fact they didn't even realise (or so they told the court) that they'd made an offer at all. She showed up and demanded the money, and they sent her away so she sued them. And she won. The court saw no reason in principle to nullify contracts which one party is unaware of until the terms are fulfilled. Nor to disregard contractual offers made to the general public (in this case in the form of a newspaper advert). Just because when we think of a contract we imagine a signed piece of paper, doesn't mean the law sees it that way. All that's needed is a legitimate offer (including "consideration" of some sort) and acceptance of that offer by one or more other parties. The situation in which one party is oblivious to the contract is now commonplace, and even situations in which /neither/ party is actively aware of a contract formed between them can occur. Only when something goes wrong do any /people/ need to be informed of the situation at all, since usually the contract is mutually beneficial and everyone is content.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 14:00 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] This may well be a US-vs-English law difference, but my understanding is that `contracts which one party is unaware of' is meaningless in English law (I can't even figure out what on earth it might mean in everyday English). If one party offers something to another one in a newspaper advert, that other party presumably must communicate with the first one in order to get whatever-it-is. As soon as that communication takes place, you'd have an implied contract in English law. (I think. The fact that both parties are aware of the contract and that it would apply to the other party *might* be sufficient. IANAL.)
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 14:52 UTC (Fri) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] > This may well be a US-vs-English law difference, but my understanding is that `contracts which one party is unaware of' is meaningless in English law (I can't even figure out what on earth it might mean in everyday English). This case defined the concept of a unilateral offer. The issue was that although Carbolic claimed to have been unaware of having made an offer (of compensation for the smoke balls having proved inefficiacious), in legal terms they met every qualification of having done so (precision of offered consideration - £1000 placed in a bank account for the purpose; precision of audience - the general public; specification of the means of acceptance - use of the smoke balls). And English law does presume competence. Having thus met the conditions of acceptance, Mrs Carlill was entitled to succeed in her claim against them. Advertisers have been rather more careful to state and ensure that they are in no way making offers since then.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 3, 2008 13:18 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Hence the regular apperance of offers on cereal packets consisting of tickets with an explicitly-stated value of 0.000001p and so on.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 7:31 UTC (Thu) by gyles (subscriber, #1600) [Link] I think there's also the issue of 'consideration' - a contract must be a two way deal.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 12:51 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] In essence, (1) rahvin knows better than any lawyer, (2) it would be very inconvenient if he was wrong, (3) popcorn!; *therefore* there's nothing to worry about. That's some fine reasoning.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 14:54 UTC (Fri) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Isn't that precisely your own reasoning, though? (1) ncm knows better than the lawyers who drew up the document in the first place; (2) it would be very inconvenient if he were right; (3) OMFGBBQZ!!!!
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 23:07 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The lawyers who drew up the document in the first place don't claim to know either. Not knowing is itself the problem.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 3, 2008 19:40 UTC (Sun) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] From the GPL:6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor [....]From rahvin, above: The GPL specifically grants the rights (not IMPLIED, it's explicitly granted) to every licensee the right to not only issue new licenses automatically with every copy [....](In order to avoid getting lost in ``the party of the third part'' stuff, I'll try to clearly differentiate the actors.)
But if I read you right, you're saying Bob can grant new licenses, so Alice is no longer involved. In that case, Alice's wishes are moot, since Bob's now the licensor. But it looks to me that the GPL gives Bob no right to license the code. Am I confused, do they factor out to being the same thing in the end, or what?
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 5:30 UTC (Fri) by grantingram (subscriber, #18390) [Link] Wishful thinking is cancer on more than license discussions. It makes bad code, bad politics, bad science, bad medical treatment, and bad public policy.And that would make ponies what then? The sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play perhaps?
Irrevocable GPL Posted Jan 29, 2008 15:03 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Look at it from the commercial point of view. Suppose you are IBM and you pay someone (say, The SCO Group) for the right to redistribute their code at any point in the future. (What IBM might call a "perpetual, irrevocable license".) Then at some later point TSG tells you that you cannot redistribute that code anymore to your customers because they are having second thoughts: the license was not, after all, perpetual nor irrevocable. Never mind that TSG didn't have the copyrights after all, and that their case was feeble to say the least; do you think they would have stood a chance in court, just on this point alone?Now tell us: does the exchange of money change anything? The GPL is actually a "perpetual, irrevocable license"; another line of defense for IBM was that TSG had actually distributed that same code they were suing about under the GPL. Note that they did not argue that they were taking the GPL back; in this instance they chose to say that they only distributed the code under the GPL unknowingly. This is all a glob of speculation, of course, with just a thin factual wrapper. But it would seem to me that in order for someone to revoke the license, they would have to convince the court that they didn't want to distribute under such a "perpetual, irrevocable" license. This would make them look like a bunch of fools, be difficult to prove, and take back all pretense of good will. And this is under US law; in other countries ignorance of the law is not such a good defense in court. In any case it doesn't look like a good strategy to this non-lawyer, except to make a lot of noise with little to gain.
Irrevocable GPL Posted Feb 3, 2008 20:02 UTC (Sun) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Does this apply to the GPLv2? I just searched, and found neither `perpetual' nor `irrevocable' in it. Does that make a difference?
Irrevocable GPL Posted Feb 4, 2008 15:30 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Good question. You are right, there is nothing in the text of the GPLv2 which speaks about perpetuity or revocability. I would think that such concepts are implicit in the text in that there are explicit provisions to terminate it and revoke it; if certain conditions are met, then the license is always valid.Do these concepts of "perpetual and irrevocable" need to be explicit? I'm not sure. The answer probably lies in whatever is customary in the industry. If many licenses are explicitly "perpetual", then any license which does not contain the term will not be considered as such by the parties implied; and so with irrevocable. Anyway, there is no harm to adding it to the license if it clarifies it further. I'm still not a lawyer.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 9:02 UTC (Tue) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] That's a redherring statement because if your REALLY understood the GPL you would then KNOW it is based DIRECTLY on copyright LAW. So whatever "overrides" as you use the term. The GPL ALREADY has such powers (for a lack of a better word) based on statutory/case law that has been established by copyright issues/court cases/rulings/etc.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 12:33 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Wishful thinking also makes bad code.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 3:43 UTC (Tue) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] > The key is that the copyright owner isn't bound by the license. The GPL expresses an intent to issue new licenses, but the owner can change that intent, and stop issuing new licenses. This is an intriguing and novel-to-me argument, but I have no idea whether I should be convinced or not -- there are, after all, plenty of other cases where one cannot legally renege on an agreement (like, all of contract law, for instance). *You* seem certain, and other posters not, but the argument isn't generating any insight in to the merits of either side, at least to me. Could you cite whatever case law, or whatever, convinced you that courts would be likely to accept this interpretation of the GPL?
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:17 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Sorry, I can't cite anything. A discussion of a related (but not identical!) topic on Advogato five years ago was also inconclusive: http://www.advogato.org/article/606.html The difference is that the previous discussion was about retracting distribution rights from current licenseholders, where this is about whether those rights necessarily extend to new recipients even if the owner says no.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 21:17 UTC (Thu) by im14u2c (subscriber, #5246) [Link] What part of "automatically" do you not understand? It requires no action on the part of the original author. By issuing the code under the GPL the first time, they have stated intent to extend the license automatically to all others who receive a GPL'd copy of the code. Sure, the author can decide to stop giving copies himself or herself. Big deal. Anyone else can give a copy and know that the author's original promise, built into the GPL license, still holds. All recipients will receive that copy under the GPL with all rights granted automatically as per the terms of the license.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 22:05 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The above mode of argument has a name. It's called "begging the question". At the core, its pattern is "Assuming (1) I'm right, then (2) ... (n) therefore I'm right." You cannot reason about how the law will treat a license, a licensor, and licensees based solely on the text of the license. The law determines much of the meaning. The copyright holder has rights under the law that aren't stated in the license, and that may override what is stated in the license. That's the topic under discussion. If you haven't got that far, you haven't got anywhere. The problem is that the law isn't clear. You can wish all you like that the law were both clear and agreeable with your prejudice, but the facts are otherwise.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 28, 2008 22:42 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] I assume your interpretation, if holds true by a court in a country, applies to most free software licenses, such as the BSD license as well, as applied in the area under the effective control of that country. Nothing specific to the GPL.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 12:53 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] There is a bit specific to the GPL: the statement that the copyright owner extends the license to each new recipient. That's implied in other licenses, but not stated. However, I agree that it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 21:07 UTC (Thu) by im14u2c (subscriber, #5246) [Link]
You can only distribute a work to another under the GPL if you extend the same rights to them as was extended to you, and that includes the right of redistribution. In fact, those rights are automatically granted by the original licensor by virtue of releasing the code under the GPL at some point in its life. Specifically:
So, once the cows have left the barn, sure, you as copyright holder can close the barn door and choose to not let more cows out. The cows that have left are free to wander where they may.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 3:22 UTC (Tue) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] I wish some one would sort this GPL thing out Once and for all there are so many sudo legal bods out there one says one thing another says different it all make the GPL look like a joke . Can we please have a definitive and READABLE answer .. for what it's worth my take is it is issued GPL so it IS GPL no get outs the only way a piece of software can be changed is to change it's structure and the reissue it under the new license but it has NO affect on the viability of already released code or it freedom to be modded and redistributed item ie if you have released it under GLP tough it's out there in the wild and you cant do a darn thing (also have the ability to say which O/S'es said code can be run on )
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 5:58 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Sure, you can have a definitive answer. Arrange for a binding precedent to be set (in the UK, I think this means the Court of Appeal or a higher court). This is not a 'GPL-specific' thing: this is a copyright law thing. Until a suitable judge decides (or clarifying legislation is passed in some jurisdictions), there is no definitive answer. (Maybe there already is a definitive answer in this area of copyright law, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there isn't: the GPL does a number of things differently from most licenses... I'll ask my cousin this weekend, who's a UK copyright lawyer and might have a clue.)
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 12:28 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] You might get a definitive answer for Kent, but it likely contradicts the definitive answer in Cornwall, and neither answer tells you anything about conditions in Normandy or Chicago. Generally, when you transfer ownership, promises you've made to other people don't go with it. Your brother doesn't get to use the car after you sell it, even if he still has a key.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:09 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] The GPL is not covered by your (vaguely defined) "general case". (1) Software is not a piece of tangible property; the utility of one copy of GPL-covered software is not diminished by someone else using another copy simultaneously, so your car analogy does not apply. (2) The license is attached to the software, not the author or the licensee. The license is intentionally and explicitly designed to perpetually propagate the rights of use, modification and redistribution, to *anyone*, whether or not they received the software from the original author. This is the stated basic intention and raison d'etre of the license. Why is this so difficult to understand? This is why it's called "copyleft"--it is meant to build and nurture the community of free code, and the authors which use it are assumed to, by the act of choosing this license, agree with this intention and purpose. Thus, they voluntarily give up the right of revocation in return for the greater good of building up the community of free code. Any author that doesn't agree with this, is free not to use this license. If they didn't read the license before using it, that's not the licensee's fault.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:24 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] "Thus, they voluntarily give up the right of revocation in return for ..." That's the theory, but it begs the question: have they, in fact, given up that right? Have they, furthermore, caused all subsequent owners to give up that right, even the ones who don't want "the greater good"? I don't know, and I have every reason to believe you don't know either, wishful thinking notwithstanding.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:36 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] This is, as I said before, the explicitly stated aim of the license.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 15:51 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] ... but saying it, even in the text of the license, doesn't make it so.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 18:04 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Saying it in the text of the license does indeed make it so; there is nothing else that would. The author released the software under the license with the stated terms and conditions; they are bound by those terms and conditions, otherwise licenses mean nothing at all. If the terms and conditions state that the licensee may use, modify and redistribute the software, and that anyone that receives the software from them has an exactly equivalent license to use, modify and redistribute, then the licensees have every right to be able to detrimentally rely on that statement. I fail to see how this obvious reading of explicitly declared conditions in a widely-used copyright license that has been reviewed by a large number of legal experts qualifies as "wishful thinking".
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 19:33 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] The single most qualified expert, Eben Moglen, has the FSF collecting copyright assignments, despite enormous inconvenience and no small amount of bad blood resulting. It is evident to him, at least, that the text of the GPL alone does not suffice to maintain the freedom of the software that the FSF distributes. You are confusing license with law. The law places restrictions on you as a non-copyright-owner. A license granted by the copyright holder releases you from some of these restrictions. The law offers the copyright owner the power, via court order, to enforce any restrictions the license reserves. Any legal obligations on the copyright owner aren't going to be in the license, they will be part of statutory, case, and common law. To know the degree to which a copyright owner may choose to enforce a new license on new recipients of a "work", it does not suffice to read the old license. You must know the body of law involved. Absent wishful thinking, this stuff is not hard to understand.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 15:03 UTC (Wed) by joey (subscriber, #328) [Link] The FSF clearly has other reasons to collect copyright assignments. The most cited reason is to allow relicensing under a license like GPL 3.
Why the FSF gets copyright assignments Posted Feb 3, 2008 19:07 UTC (Sun) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] It is evident to him, at least, that the text of the GPL alone does not suffice to maintain the freedom of the software that the FSF distributes.If it's evident, he doesn't mention it in his explanation of why they do it. It's so that, when the time comes to defend the copyright of a program with multiple authors, they can just get on with it. Otherwise, they[the FSF]'d need to spend time rounding up everyone and having them [the authors] sign on to the action. With the assignment, the author has signed on already.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 13:34 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Er, um, Kent and Cornwall are covered by the same legal system and bound by the same precedents, last I heard. If you'd say `Edinburgh' instead of `Cornwall' you'd have been on firmer ground :) --- and of course this is all profoundly jurisdiction-dependent.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 14:56 UTC (Fri) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Transfer of ownership is a contract. You have been at pains yourself to point out that the GPL isn't one.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Feb 1, 2008 23:02 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Please try to keep up. If you transfer ownership of the copyright, it is not at all clear that the new owner is bound by the promises you made. Sure, *you* still won't assert your privilege under copyright law to restrict publication, as promised (indeed you can't, any more), but the new owner never made any such promise. The contract is only between the former and new owner of the copyright, which needn't involve licensees at all. Sometimes there's no chance to involve licensees' rights in the transfer, as in death without a will, or confiscation after bankruptcy, and there's no legal requirement for it.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 10:51 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] The GPL goes out of its way to say that it's a license, not a contract. There have apparently been some recent cases where courts appeared inclined to consider it under contract law rather than copyright law. FLOSS commentators have tended to view that with alarm. However, viewed as a license, it's hard to see how to interpret "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors" as licensing language, as opposed to contractual language. The licensor is promising to do something in the future, which seems to me [IANAL] to be what contracts do, as opposed to what licenses do (grant someone permission to do something). So, is it really a license, a contract, or a little bit of both? Is a court likely to accept the idea of it being both?
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 11:42 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] The licensor is NOT promising to do something in the future. They are promising to not disallow redistribution under the same terms in the future. There is no action on the part of the licensor when redistribution occurs. Yes, the wording of the GPL alludes to there being a promise to do something in the future, but common sense says otherwise. Please, no rants about judges not using common sense.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 12:25 UTC (Tue) by juriise (subscriber, #38305) [Link] I think some easy, simple language is appropriate here: 1. The GPL can not, and does not pretend to trump copyright law. Language that crosses the law is carefully not included in the text. This is different from many commercial non-free licenses. The GPL builds on the law to make software under that license valuable to the user. 2.The GPL is a license, same word as a permit. It is not a contract. Why? A contracts needs two parties, each party needs to promise something, and each party needs to sign it. To make it legal, each party also needs to get something out of it. A license, same as a permit, can be a part of a contract though, the rest might be the transfer of some money. You can use all the provisions of the GPL, including making and distributing copies, without signing off any of your rights. 3. Is there a time limit in the GPL? No. That is why it is forever. Gifts and sales are the same. People taking back what they have given or sold, because they change their minds, that would be the end of capitalism as we know it. 4. Yes, there are dark corners in every part of the law landscape, where anything can happen, but do those details move the market? 5. The clear language and consistence with the law are the reasons why the GPL is not more often in the courts. Anyway, the non-rights to those who does not comply with the license, has been decided in the courts many times. Have not seen any court cases where the revokability of the license has been decided, but I know of no piece of GPL software that has been revoked either. 5. There is a strong desinformation pressure in these matters. Be critical.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 14:02 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Sepreece is correct: they are not promising to do something in the future, they are promising, instead, *not* do do something they otherwise have the right to do: halt distribution. At issue is (a) whether that promise is binding, considering that they get nothing in exchange, and (b), assuming it is binding, whether that promise is also binding on a subsequent owner of copyright on the same work, and particularly, in this case, (c) whether they are obliged to continue making that same promise indefinitely, to every new recipient of the code, and whether a subsequent owner is also obliged to make such promises. It would be easy to believe a court enforcing (a), but equally easy to believe one not enforcing (b) or (c).
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 14:08 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Sorry, it's clugstj who's correct.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 16:14 UTC (Tue) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] > (a) whether that promise is binding, considering that they get nothing in exchange What they get in exchange is access to other code under the GPL, access which is in large part dependent upon and protected by the non-revocability of the GPL. Peter Yellman
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 16:55 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I agree, Mr. Yellman. In addition, it doesn't matter (in the legal sense) whether they get anything or not. Licenses do not require exchange of consideration as contracts do. They are a grant of privilege, possibly with stipulations of responsibility attached. The responsibilities attached don't necessarily convey any advantage to the licensor--there are motivations besides those of the economic variety. In addition, it also doesn't matter because no action is occurring at all on the part of the author; the license text merely states that anyone acquiring a copy of the software has, already, by explicit stipulation in the license, the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, with no requirement to inquire of the author to verify this. The rights of usage, redistribution and modification are "inalienable", so to speak, for anyone with access to the software.
Maybe it would be better if it were a contract? Posted Jan 29, 2008 19:42 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Again, you're confusing the rights of the recipient of a license grant with the rights of the copyright owner. It is the copyright owner who is left unrestricted by the lack of exchange. The distinction between licensee and copyright owner is not subtle. There's no reason to get muddled here.
Contract law is a cesspit. Posted Jan 29, 2008 19:35 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] They have that access anyway. Therefore, it's not an exchange, therefore not a consideration. Wishful thinking is muddy thinking.
Contract law is a cesspit. Posted Jan 30, 2008 0:18 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] The way you keep fighting for this VERY long stretched interpretation of the law, one starts to think that you are the one trying to revoke the ATSC GPL license. In that case, you are the one with wishful thinking...
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 5:40 UTC (Wed) by duck (subscriber, #4444) [Link] Let's try an analogy: 1) I rent a car for 10 days. I pay a certain amount of money for the right to use the car, including the right to let other people drive the car. I take the car and start driving. After 4 days the car company suddenly decides that I am not allowed to drive the car anymore because they want to change the contract. I would guess that they can not change the current contract. Of course the next contract will include the changed terms, should I decide to rent that car again. So, for the whole 10 days I am bound to the terms under which I rented the car, not to the current terms for a new contract. 2) I rent a car, in fact, I get it for free, because the company for whatever reason decided to set the prize to zero. Everything else is like described above. Does this change anything? I do not think so. 3) I rent a car forever, for free. Does this change anything? I would not think so. Now the company decides to add some restrictions to future contracts. I would think that I am not affected, because my contract is still running. It can not be changed without me accepting the change. It is running forever. I am no lawyer and there might be a difference between a contract and a license, but you can easily construct something like this for MP3-encoded music. It all depends on the condition that both parties agreed upon. It is not affected by any later changes. The beauty of the GPL is, that is allows every receiver to redistribute it under the same terms under which he received it. This right can not be taken away after it has been granted. The copyright holder can stop granting this right to anybody, but the persons who received it can continue to distribute the work under the original GPL terms. Regards
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 12:21 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Wishful thinking is muddy thinking. Also, argument by analogy is fraud. In fact, whether you pay for something makes a big difference in court. There, they call it "consideration", so they can account for other sorts of value than money (e.g. consent, exclusivity). Somebody who gets no "consideration" from you is usually under no obligation to you. In your example above, if they told you you could use the car indefinitely -- even put it in writing -- and then sold it, the new owner could come collect the car, and you'd be on foot again, all proper and legal.
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 14:30 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Argument by analogy is fallacy, not fraud. (And it's not even a fallacy in most walks of life, so calling it a fraud is even more uncalled for.)
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 14:47 UTC (Wed) by duck (subscriber, #4444) [Link] Well, you seem very confident, ncm. I do not know american law, and, as I said, I am no lawyer, but I can assure you that you can give something away for free in other countries and will have no chance of getting it back if you should change your mind later. A common example is the right to live in a flat for free until you die. This right is often granted to elderly persons, and even if the flat is sold this right can not be revoked. Anyway, this discussion does not help any further, let's just ask a laywer, or, for three different opinions, let's ask two. Regards
Lack of citations Posted Jan 30, 2008 21:45 UTC (Wed) by JesseW (subscriber, #41816) [Link] Just in case anyone missed this: ncm said: "Sorry, I can't cite anything." Until someone provides some citations on this point, I don't see what else there is to say. I personally find some sense in my understanding of ncm's point, that granting a license to downstream recipients is not any kind of grant of "permission", and so isn't an enforceable part of the GPL, and so can be "revoked" any time the copyright holder chooses.
Lack of citations Posted Jan 31, 2008 10:50 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] If granting a license to downstream recipients is not a grant of permission, then what is it? If you can't stand the thought of someone being able to rely on your promises as specified in the license, then you're free to not use the GPL.
Lack of citations Posted Jan 31, 2008 12:37 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I think you miss the point of "can't cite". (You're not alone in that.) Nobody else can cite anything either. That doesn't mean there's no problem; it is, itself, the problem. It means judges have no guidance, and (in the US) they will tend to go with whoever brings more money to the table. What this means for us is that there is a big risk until we can get some legislation clarifying the matter. The alternative I see promoted in most messages here is "wishing really hard", which doesn't work well in court without a lot of money behind it.
Lack of citations Posted Jan 31, 2008 21:47 UTC (Thu) by JesseW (subscriber, #41816) [Link] I don't (yet) believe that no-one can cite anything on this subject. It is certainly possible that there is no case law that would bear on this subject (is permitting multiple levels of distribution a grant of permission, or simply an unenforceable, any-time revocable notice), but I would not trust that until I heard it from a lawyer specializing in copyright law, after that lawyer had done the research they felt necessary. And a statement like that, if someone has done that research, could be cited. Until someone posts either a case, or, even better, a statement from a copyright lawyer, we DON'T KNOW; there may be a risk, but there may not be. At a minimum, someone should put in a request to the SFLC to opine on this subject.
Lack of citations Posted Jan 31, 2008 22:14 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I guess you missed that I had a message from Fred von Lohmann of the EFF explaining that the legal status of revocation isn't clear. That's where this all started, really.
Lack of citations Posted Feb 1, 2008 15:22 UTC (Fri) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Easily missed, considering that this is the only comment in the whole tree in which you have mentioned Mr von Lohmann.
Letter on this subject from Fred von Lohmann to ncm Posted Feb 2, 2008 0:05 UTC (Sat) by JesseW (subscriber, #41816) [Link] I'm delighted to hear that you have a letter from Mr. Lohmann -- that's basically what I was asking for. Would you mind pointing me to where (not, apparently, in this comment thread at LWN, but elsewhere, I presume) you have published this letter, or summarized its contents? Are you aware of any *public* comments Mr. Lohmann has made on this subject that you could point me to?
FOUND! -- Letter on this subject from Fred von Lohmann to ncm Posted Feb 2, 2008 0:21 UTC (Sat) by JesseW (subscriber, #41816) [Link] And, of course, a few seconds after I post, I find what you were referring to... It's this article at Advogato The relevant quote is: "I wrote to Fred von Lohmann of the EFF, and he said that the question is a difficult one, and that it "actually came up in the cphack case, but the issue was never resolved"." Sigh, it's a universal -- whenever you send off a post, immediately you need to update it...
The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 31, 2008 4:37 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] I've skipped a lot of the legal arguments above, but I have a suggestion. Anyone who has written code and released it under the GPL and not assigned his copyrights for whatever reason, might wish to assign all such copyrights to the FSF or suchlike in his will. That eliminates any chance of it falling into the hands of "bad people" once he is no longer around.
|
|||||||||||