Author of ATSC Capture and Edit Tool Tries to Revoke GPL

The author of ATSC capture and edit tool has announced that he is attempting to revoke the licensing of his product under the GPL General Public License. Unfortunately it appears that the GPL does not allow this particular action. Of course in this heyday of lawyers and trigger happy litigators who can tell. What successes have others had in trying to take something they once operated under the GPL and make it private? And the more pressing question, why?

Comments

Come on guys, it's not hard.

[PhrostyMcByte]

READ the license before putting your code under it. I know the GPL is big, but you only need to do it once. You can change the license on future releases (assuming you own the copyright), but you can't revoke the rights the GPL grants to people using past releases.

Re:Come on guys, it's not hard.

[AdrocK]

I find myself saying "RTF[Insert Acronym Letter Here]" every day. People sign acceptable use agreements, employment contracts, EULA's, policies, and a lot of other things without reading them. When they violate them they scream foul or "I didn't know I couldn't do that".

People have always done this, but recently it seems that they are getting away with it. Expressed penalties or consequences are softened or overturned with an "Oh, no one actually READS that stuff".

I'm not saying I read every single thing word for word that I agree to or put my name on, but I know I will need to live with the consequences if I violate the agreement. Something of this scope, though, I would imagine you would read and understand the entire license that you are releasing your code under. I can understand accepting the EULA as a user without reading it, but not as a publisher.

Ignorance of the rules isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Why? many possible reasons...

[tftp]

For example, he could have been approached about buying his project and continuing it as a closed source under some corporate umbrella. Or he is one of the founders of a new startup and needs to throw something in to get some shares. One thing is likely, though - money is involved somehow.

Re:May I be the first to say

[Endymion]

That only works if you got a copy in binary format or similar.

If, by some miracle, he actually did succeed in removing all copies of it, this action would actually work. (the old GPL versions wouldn't be "distributed" and therefor the source code requirements are not relevant)

I highly doubt that he could succeed in such an endeavor, though, unless he had all of 0 people using his code. If that was the case, why did he give it as GPL in the first place? @.@

Re:Could fuel anti GPL fire

[Waffle Iron]

Why would it raise concerns about the GPL in particular? If the GPL can be revoked after the fact, then *any* software license (proprietary, FOSS or whatever) could likewise be revoked. Any 3rd party code of any kind in commercial applications would be at similar risk.

Request Denied

[ewhac]

If revoking the GPL were possible, Microsoft could simply buy the copyright to any GPL project it deemed a potential threat and revoke the licensing (existing users would get a license pricing break 12 months later on Microsoft LS, Microsoft CAT, Microsoft FIND, Microsoft IFCONFIG, etc...).

Frankly, I wonder what the causative factor was. Did someone threaten to sue him unless he pulled the code down?

Schwab

Re:Request Denied

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the causative factor was.

No you don't, you wonder what the cause was. Please stop obfuscating your writing with mindless idiocy like "causative factor". It doesn't make you sound any smarter just because you use more syllables.

Revoke your right

[Mistlefoot]

I hereby give you the right to read and/or reply to this post.

By reading this post and/or replying to it you agree to the terms.

, um, no. I've changed my mine.

You are no longer allowed to read and/or reply to this post. If you have already read and/or replied to this post "it is in your best interest to remove the" ..... memory ..... "from your" ..... brain ..... "and"/or destroy all ..... memories of it ..... "in your possession".

Not under GPL 3 (or V2 or Later)

[maz2331]

GPL3 explicitly states that the license is irrevocable - and will kill his claims if he used the boilerplate GPL files from FSF. Why? Because GPL2 included a default clause allowing the LICENSEE to choose any later version. So... he agreed explicitly to allow the recipients of the code to interpret the license as GPL3, which means that he is bound by a promise he made.

If he sues anyone, it's curtains for his claims. Actually, just one disaffected licensee can file suit against him right now for attempting to cause damages by this attempt. The words "bad faith" and "punitive and compensatory damages" come to mind.

The problem he faces is that he explicitly and knowingly released the code under the license. He can't go back and say ""I didn't mean it". The system doesn't allow that at all.

Re:copies already obtained

[Dun Malg]

"...the licensing under the GPL for both packages has been revoked by the author." What a fucking rube. He can't de-license a GPL'd piece of software any more than he can un-screw his pregnant sister! If such a thing were possible, you'd have seen Microsoft repeatedly paying off key individuals in the Linux "source chain" to render the OS largely undistributable.

"...it is in your best interest..." What, is that supposed to be some sort of threat? My best interest?! How can you know what's MY best interest is? How can you say what MY best interest is? I think my best interest is posting your fucking software source wherever I can. Screw off! All I wanted was a Pepsi!

Re:why such incompetence?

[Endymion]

in fact, according to the WIKI and several other sources it *is* a contract

And the wiki is such a good source of reliable legal information?

From the GPLv2:

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
      TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    0. This License applies to...

(all emphasis mine, of course)

You will note that even though most EULA's contain

So? The GPL is not an END USER license. It's a distribution license.

You can unilaterally decide to accept it or not, but it's the only thing allowing you to bypass the normal copyright restrictions on further distribution.

As for this idiot in the article, even if he had a different license, copyright is only about distribution. You have no obligation to ever destroy your copy or otherwise do anything the author wants once you have legally acquired a copy. Just as the RIAA has no legal ground to force you to not listen to your CDs at any given time, the author of a program cannot decide after the fact to force you to delete the copy you already have.

To do this kind of restriction, you would need a contract, but most media still is not distributed in a manner that requires you to enter into a contract with the author.

There are very important differences between a "license" and a "contract", and it seems a lot of people get it wrong... sigh...

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

someone has made noises about suing him for having this software out there That's a pretty good theory. It's a terrible theory.
If he is doing it under duress, there is no good reason for him to keep the duress a secret.
Worst case the people who are now scouring the net for previous copies just to spite him will do exactly the same just to spite whomever is threatening the author. Best case he gets sympathy from the community in general and less people decide to defy the revocation.

It's Meaningless

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

He can certainly relicense the code, but he can't revoke the license for existing code. From #4:

However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[gnasher719]

Yes, it propogates. If the first person was not authorized to distribute the code, then the GPL does not make it valid. As the GPL prohibits licencing encumbered code, it does not apply, thus any distributions were not made under the GPL, and thus those distributions cannot be redistributed under the GPL as the original copy was never validly released under the GPL. Of course, IANAL. In this case, the person who "revokes" the license claims that he is the sole author of the software in question (unfortunately, he doesn't write that he is the copyright holder, but if he isn't the copyright holder, then he doesn't have the right to give or deny permission to anyone, so we should assume he is the copyright holder).

So according to what he says, everybody who has the code right now has it legally. He also says he is revoking the GPL, he doesn't claim that the code was stolen from him, so anybody who received the code has it under the GPL license.

He has of course the right not to make any further distributions himself using the GPL, or not make any bugfixes available under GPL, or just not make any bugfixes available at all, and to ask people to please delete the software and not distribute it. However, anybody who has the software still has the right to distribute it, that is irrevocable. There is nothing at all he can do about it. If he tries to sue anybody for distribution, that would be thrown out of court in no time.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Sique]

But with your method the original owner ist wronged twice: First he loses his property, then to get it back he loses the money. What if the stolen object is some valuable item like an old painting, inherited from the ancestors? What if the original owner would have to sell his house to get it back?

And almost certainly wrong

[WindBourne]

I am guessing that he has found a new business model/investor and now wants to change.

But he will not be able to revoke the GPL for the old work. The reality is that he used lower level GPL software to build with. As such, he entered into a contract that said, I am re-paying you by adding to the work. Once he released it, it was payment. Imagine if MS sold you an application, and then later decided to jack up the price you paid for it i.e. they charge you again. That is illegal (though you may have to pay for certain extras).

In fact, if he could retract the license, then why do commercial companies with their big fancy lawyers not retract your right to use their software when they want you to upgrade? In particular, MS sells you a app say MS word. License says that if you paid us for you have the right to use this on one system. Later, MS wants you to upgrade. How do they encourage it? They stop support it for it. But if they could retract the license and say that you are now illegal and must get rid of this, don't you think they would? In fact, IBM and others would be doing it ALL the time. Point is, the GPL was legally applied to this app. It has been there for a long time.

He has ZERO rights to pull it back. The only right that he has is change the license of future code.

Let that be a lesson to all!

[Snaller]

Never release anything under the GPL - like all contracts relating to "intellectual property" it is evil.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Stephan Schulz]

In most jurisdictions I know (certainly in civil law countries, the US, and the UK), you cannot acquire ownership of stolen property. If you buy something stolen, bad for you. It still belongs to the original owner. If you buy it while being aware that it as stolen, you are guilty of receiving stolen property, a rather serious crime. Indeed, in many jurisdictions this even applies if you should have reasonably assumed that it was stolen (the back alley huge discount scenario).

The motivation behind this is to make theft less profitable. If you could acquire actual ownership of stolen property, you would be willing to pay up to market price for it, and your interest would be to ''not'' inquire wether the item has been legitimately acquired by the fence. With the common arrangement, however, the buyers carries (part of) the risk, so fencing becomes a lot harder and less profitable.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[zippthorne]

Yes, but if he's basically announcing that HE never had authority to distribute via GPL, and therefore everyone downstream has an invalid license, then the announcement is really an attempt to disclaim liability for the actions of people outside of his control.

It may or may not be the case in this instance, but it's certainly possible to imagine scenarios where people distribute code they have written entirely, but whose subject matter was in some way restricted. If they were confused or unaware of restrictions in the initial license and released their code out of altruism, is it really fair to expose them to unlimited liability, with no method of mitigating that liability once they realize their mistake?

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[geoswan]

But the flip side is that if you obtain stolen property it doesn't matter if you accepted it in good faith, it's still not yours and you have to return it.

You remind me of the anorexic, who couldn't decide whether or not they were on a diet.

So they ate a whole chocolate cake.

Afterwards, they decided they were on a diet, after all. So they took steps to return the cake to the uneaten state.

It seems to me what the original author and copyright holder is saying is:
* I wrote some great software;
* I couldn't decide whether or not I wanted to release this software under the GPL;
* I thought my career would get a boost, from my reputation getting a boost, from releasing something good. Users might pay me consulting fees to maintain or extend my product. I might sell a book on how to use it. So even though I hadn't really made up my mind, I gave it away.
* Well, my career didn't get the boost I expected. So, now I have finally made up my mind. I don't want it out under the GPL after all.

This does not make anyone who received it from him a thief. It does not make anyone who received a legitimate copy, one that came with a copy of the GPL, and credited the original author, a thief.

And, IMO, it doesn't make anyone who redistributes his software, with the GPL liscense, and the appropriate credit, a thief.

Distributors who filed off the serial numbers, gave it away, or sold it, without crediting him, were thieves -- both before and after he tried to revoke the GPL.

Warning! Never do business with this individual! How could you tell he would honor any agreement you thought you had with him?