Slashdot Mirror
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?
How is it possible that people still don't get how the GPL works, and still think they can treat it like a contract or something?
/was/ a lawyer that wrote this, that's even more insane. Fire that incompetent freak!)
I would think that it would be obvious, after reading the FSF web site or even just the news about the GPL, that stupid tricks like this not only don't work, but are the very thing the GPL is intended to prevent.
Even more strange is that people seem to think they can write up these fancy-sounding letters as if they were a lawyer. Did they somehow miss that law is complicated and we have lawyers go to school for many years to properly understand all this? (note: if it actually
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
The fact that the GPL doesn't allow you to limit your liability in this manner is why I don't like the GPL. It's just another means to make the software non-free, despite its supposed intent.
Its not entirely impossible that he could make it stick, just unlikely. For example: Was he over 18 at the time he released the code under the GPL? If not, he might not have been competent to enter in to a licensing agreement. If that's the case then the original grant of license under the GPL is void. Technically that's not the same as revoking it, but it has the same effect.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Upload it somewhere. Share it with the world, as is your right. ;)
I've really been trying to find any copy of this, just for the sake of it. . .
Actually, could you hand me a binary, so I can request source code from him?
Azh nazg durbataluk, azh nazg gimbatul, Azh nazg thrakataluk agh burzum ishi krimpatul! This sig blocked by Slashdot.
Seriously, under what legal theory is this proceeding?
Without knowing any background besides the linked info, I'd guess its one of the following:
The "you wankers didn't respect me so now you can suck wind" theory, or
The "I sold the code and they made me do this to get paid" theory.
Both theories have been very well tested in court. Very well tested.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
thanks, also see here for the older version
Consider an original author releasing a work under the GPL. Then a small patch from a contributor is accepted into the project. If the original author then adds more to the project, then isn't the original author creating a derivative work? So after that point, the original author can't even relicense code that the original author adds to the project, because that code is a derivative of the GPL work, right? I think this is how it's supposed to work so that people wont waste their time contributing to a project that is going to be taken closed.
> So after that point, the original author can't even relicense
> code that the original author adds to the project,
nope.
the author of any piece of code retains the copyright on whatever they write (unless they assign it to someone else - like the project's lead developer or the FSF), so they can take their code (both the original code AND anything they've added to it after contributed code is accepted) and re-license it.
they will, of course, have to delete or rewrite or negotiate a license for any code contributed by others.
(actually, even rewriting may be difficult - "clean room" reverse engineering is extremely problematic for free software or any other code where you've already seen the source)
NOTE: this still doesn't allow them to revoke the GPL on previous versions of the program.
of course, this is a good argument for contributors to GPL projects to either retain the copyright in their own name (or assign it to the FSF who they can trust to keep it free) so that projects they contribute to find it very difficult to go closed-source. it's also a good argument for choosing not to contribute to projects that require transfer of copyright for contributed code.
The GPL only applies to distribution. If he doesn't wish to distribute it any further then that is his wish. You cannot force someone to give you GPL code unless they distribute it or its products to you. Further more being the sole copyright owner he can change it so that it isn't GPL and then distribute it. None of the code would be GPL so you can't get him to give it to you. He cannot go out and change the licence on old code that has already been distributed because he has assigned the right of redistribution when he distributed those copies. GPL has no obligation on anyone but the distributor.
I always wondered where this setting was...
No. The copyright holder is not bound by the GPL.
The copyright holder is bound by copyright law.
Other people who have copies are bound by the GPL (and copyright law).
The issue at hand here is really if: he can give people permission to redistribute using the code, and then change his mind after they've already received it under that agreement. If I had a copy, then he has already given me permission to redistribute without checking with him. He's now saying that only he can give permission to redistribute. What if I never check with him? He didn't require me to before. How am I expected to know? Am I bound by his new decession, or may I argue that I have received permission and am relying on it?
The "three years" clause that you mentioned only applies to someone distributing a binary without the source.
There is nothing in the GPL that says that he is obligated to do anything once he has released the code. He may cease to distribute entirely; he may distribute under a different licence of his choosing. The only question is: does copyright law allow him to revoke such a permission once granted?
IANAL
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
In the comments for this article, a lot of people seem to keep missing this part of the the GPLv2. The GPLv2 is explicit about the license being irrevocable, right here in section 4:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. 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.By legally distributing the source code under GPLv2, he has already said to everyone that he cannot revoke the license. It is right there in plain wording.
There is also the issue that you don't even need to accept the GPL to use or have a copy of the software. Only those modifying and distributing the software need to accept the license. If you don't modify or distribute, there is no license to revoke. So, if there is some crazy call in the courts that ends up incorrectly allowing him to revoke the GPL, there are still all these people that may be using the software that are still unaffected, as they never needed the license in the first place.