Revocable GPL (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

Revocable GPL (Groklaw)

Posted Jan 29, 2008 19:12 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
In reply to: Revocable GPL (Groklaw) by nim-nim
Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)

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.

(Log in to post comments)

Revocable GPL (Groklaw)

Posted Jan 29, 2008 19:54 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 22:49 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 30, 2008 2:18 UTC (Wed) 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 30, 2008 3:42 UTC (Wed) 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.