Not So Simple [LWN.net]

Not So Simple

Posted Dec 4, 2003 18:03 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
In reply to: Not So Simple by iabervon
Parent article: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract

In fact, you can retract a copyright license. You just have to communicate the retraction to the people who have the old license. It's no different from telling somebody who is used to coming over for dinner Wednesday nights that he's not welcome any more. If he insists, you can have the police eject him, and charge him with trespassing.

Furthermore, the GPL doesn't give you the right to sublicense the original work; everybody who gets a copy gets the right to re-distribute from the original licensor, not from you. (You are obliged to extend them rights to re-distribute your own contribution.)

The GPL only says what it says. You can read it and find out what it says, we don't need to speculate.

(Log in to post comments)

Not So Simple

Posted Dec 5, 2003 14:51 UTC (Fri) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

Revoking a license is not the same as uninviting someone to dinner, and evicting them for trespassing if they do. It's much more like telling someone that they couldn't have come over for dinner last week, when you happily served them, and then immediately demanding your time, food, and occupied space back.

Not So Simple

Posted Dec 7, 2003 23:37 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

This is getting silly.

Copyright law is about publishing. If you give somebody license to publish your book this year, you can decide to have somebody else publish it next year. Withdrawing your permission doesn't mean they have to recall and destroy all the books they published. It means they have to stop publishing. That's all it means.

The case of software distribution is the same. When your license to publish is withdrawn, you just have to stop publishing. If you have a derived work, you should make sure that they have promised not to withdraw permission. The FSF makes that promise.

Not So Simple

Posted Mar 5, 2004 21:49 UTC (Fri) by crythias (guest, #19997) [Link]

From Parent:
Furthermore, the GPL doesn't give you the right to sublicense the original work; everybody who gets a copy gets the right to re-distribute from the original licensor, not from you. (You are obliged to extend them rights to re-distribute your own contribution.)

I just wanted to make sure that this point isn't left unanswered:
From the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt):
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.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [Provide a reasonable way for recipient to obtain the source from you]
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. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
-=-=-=-=-
The GPL is a fully cascadable license. Each recipient of GPL code can be a distributor. The only true option of a copyright holder (not GPL licensee!) is to distribute a (hopefully, revised, updated, better) new program under a different (perhaps, proprietary) license. Even if the copyright holder revokes the GPL, the acceptors of the GPL version of the code (source or object), even 2-3 levels deep, because they accepted a viable license, have to have full faith and credit of the license they received.

Basically, GPL isn't intended to be revokable. If that may be one's intent, one shouldn't use GPL.