| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Revocable GPL (Groklaw)Posted Jan 30, 2008 21:59 UTC (Wed) by joey (subscriber, #328)In reply to: Revocable GPL (Groklaw) by ncm Parent article: The Non-Revocable GPL (Groklaw)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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?
|
|
||||||||||||