| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Posted Jan 29, 2008 5:28 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: Revocable GPL (Groklaw) by zotz Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 7:26 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 7:57 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 9:14 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 15:54 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 9:35 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 20:33 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 23:52 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 30, 2008 2:47 UTC (Wed) 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 10:57 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 21:42 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #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 2, 2008 6:11 UTC (Sat) 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 10:49 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 18:48 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 20:00 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 20:27 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] ... and ponies for everybody.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 30, 2008 21:59 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 31, 2008 1:00 UTC (Thu) 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 31, 2008 3:42 UTC (Thu) 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 9:01 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 14:13 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 21:00 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 21:52 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #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 20:18 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 14:31 UTC (Thu) by gyles (guest, #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 19:51 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 21:54 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #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 2, 2008 6:07 UTC (Sat) 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 4, 2008 2:40 UTC (Mon) 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 12:30 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 22:03 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 4, 2008 3:02 UTC (Mon) 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 22:30 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 16:02 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 19:33 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Wishful thinking also makes bad code.
Revocable GPL (Groklaw) Posted Jan 29, 2008 10:43 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 20:17 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 Feb 1, 2008 4:17 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #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 Feb 1, 2008 5:05 UTC (Fri) 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.
|
|
||||||||||||