Revocable GPL (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

Revocable GPL (Groklaw)

Posted Jan 29, 2008 22:49 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
In reply to: Revocable GPL (Groklaw) by rahvin
Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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  In the meantime, we only need to worry about a few specific packages that have been
retracted, and even there we can limit our actions to worrying.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.