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

why such incompetence?

[Endymion]

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?

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 /was/ a lawyer that wrote this, that's even more insane. Fire that incompetent freak!)

Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[mdenham]

He may be attempting to revoke the license for liability reasons (i.e., someone has made noises about suing him for having this software out there). Forking it means he's still liable, even if he's not associated with the fork at all.

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.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[zippthorne]

Actually, there's a good question in there.

The GPL states that if you are restricted from distributing a work due to other encumbrances, you must refrain from distributing under GPL as well. It's not intended to be a rights-laundering license.

So the question is (or rather my question, since I'm sure actual legal scholars have already debated it to death) if it turns out that someone up the chain did not have the right to distribute under GPL, does that propagate down the chain to all those who unknowingly redistributed software for which the authority to actually do so was never transferred to them by someone who had it?

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Endymion]

someone has made noises about suing him for having this software out there

That's a pretty good theory. This whole thing reeks of panic and trying to sweep something back under the rug. I don't really get why, though... from what I can tell, this looks like some drivers for a set of vid-cap cards, and unless he copied the source code itself, simply writing original drivers for something isn't really something you can sue over.

Of course, it looks like this is some HD stuff (I see mentions of 720p and 1080i on a few pages...), so I wonder if there could be some MPAA pressure about not supporting some HDCP or other copy-restriction idiocy? Even so, unless he has a contract/nda/etc with them to not reveal such information, I still don't see how he could be liable in any way.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

"Here I gave this away. Everybody photocopy it."

"No wait. I changed my mind. Destroy your copies! If you give away one of your photocopies, I will have you convicted for trafficking stolen property."

Do you see how stupid this is? Even a Lawyer would be able to understand.

Wiggle room

[Spazmania]

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.

Re:GPL

[cas2000]

> 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.

Re:May I be the first to say

[pasamio]

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.

Re:May I be the first to say

[gd2shoe]

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