On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 01:49 -0700, Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Wed, May 02, 2007 at 12:15:11AM -0700: > > Gabriel Sechan wrote: > > > > >No, they can't. *If* they own every copyright in there, they could > > >decide to not make the next version of it GPL. They can't revoke the > > >license on existing copies or versions. > > Licenses *can* and *are* routinely revoked.
Yes, for such things as violating the license, not because the entity granting the license just decides to revoke it. Under the GPL, once you have been licensed to use the Program[1], the license applies to the Program forever, and can't be revoked *UNLESS* you've violated the terms of the license. > > > > And they can only do that > > >much if they never accepted any user revision, removed/rewrote all > > >user revisions, or were assigned copyright for all user revisions. > > Or declared that user revisions were "obviously derivative works" and > therefore belonged to them *anyway*. Derivative works of the Program fall under the same license as the Program, but the code that the licensee wrote in order to make the derivative works belongs (as in is copyrighted by) the person that wrote it. > > I would think that you /would/ be able to use the software -- if I > buy a book, the author cannot revoke the copyright and deprive me of > my copy of the book -- but redistribution rights might well be revocable. The GPL grants the licensee the right to re-distribute the Program and any derivative works. If the license is violated (e.g. - you sell the Program and/or derivative works without providing the source code and a copy of the license with it), *then* the license, and all rights granted by it, can be revoked. > > In practice, however, I don't think that's likely. > > However, one never knows what a company with more lawyers than market share > might choose to do. Whatever the hell they want until they are stopped. (My lawyers often tell me that, right before I stop the other party from doing whatever the hell they want. :) ) > > > person using the software, just a free gift which is therefore revokable." > > I thought gifts couldn't be retracted. Once you've made a gift, you've > given up your rights to control the gift. It happens all the time in courts. Someone says, "I gave it to them as a gift." The judge says, "Then you gave up all your rights to it." > > > The GPL *does not* explicitly prevent the revocation; the assignment of > > copyright to the EFF *does* by way of the EFF charter. > > > > Just because you wish something to be true does not make it so. > > The issue is murky enough for laywers to scratch their heads and have > honest and meaningful disagreements; the certainity of the armchair > crowd is a bit disconcerting. > I don't think they have honest and meaningful disagreements about anything most of the time, let alone about this. :) The only reason it appears to be murky is because of the hidden agendas behind those lawyers and corporations that are making it murky. PGA -- Paul G. Allen BSIT/SE Owner/Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
