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?
FORK IT!!
Thank God for the GPL!
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Change the name, start a new project, abandon the old. Problem solved.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
You cannot revoke the license. IANAL, but the FSF makes this fairly explicit:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=3D%3C%25%25%20gplv3-draft-1%20%25%3E&id=917
--Sam
P.S Click the link; it's more complicated than I've laid out here.
I have no clue if this will turn out to be enforceable or not. If it is then it will certainly fuel concerns we have heard before about using GPL'd software in commercial applications.
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.
we say "is good if man eat lots of pussy but if he suck one cock then he will always be cocksucker." GNU is like being cocksucker, always GPL
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.
IANAL, but I don't believe that you can change the license of an existing version of your software. Every case I've ever seen a software license change has resulted in the developer releasing an updated version for the new license, even if there were no other changes in the code.
He can't do that, just not possible, full stop, etc. The more interesting question is "why?". Did somebody piss him off? make him an offer? Did a lawyer bite him?
Does anybody have any background on this?
If you release code under any license that version is still that license. Any new versions can of course be any new license you want, but people can continue to use and indeed fork the old one if that license allows it, which in this case it does.
I would think that as the copyright holder, he can do whatever he damn well pleases, since the GPL is not a contract.
I'm still waiting.
Seriously, under what legal theory is this proceeding? With all due respect for the author, I just read the original license.. We, uh, probably should have gone with a "this license may be revoked at any time" sort of license rather than the GPL.
Didn't Tatu of SSH fame attempt to suppress previous versions? Lot of respect for SSH and Tatu, no respect for changing of minds on licenses.
Information doesn't want to be free. Commercial/Open/Public domain licensure is a decision we all must make
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.
IANAL. Even if the code is relicensed, as I recall, copies obtained legally remain legal. I am not sure if the copies remain under the license they were obtained under, but I suspect so.
But again, IANAL. YMMV. Consult a real IP lawyer.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
If you could revoke the GPL the way this guy's trying to do, then there'd be no point to the GPL in the first place.
But the horse is out of the barn insofar as existing code goes, if it's been distributed to anyone. Probably (I don't have the GPL in front of me, but I've worked with it a lot; IIRC the grant of rights is for the duration of copyright and is non-revocable). There's no tool he can use to rescind the rights so granted, and anyone who has a copy of the source from before this change of heart can continue to distribute under the terms of the GPL, as can anyone who gets a copy from one of those distributors.
As the owner of the copyright in the code, he doesn't need the GPL to make derivative works, etc., so anything he works on moving forward he can license how he chooses.
geek. lawyer.
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.
Anyone have the previously GPLd source they could share with the rest of us?
From the various screenshots and etc that I've found, it doesn't look like anything groundbreaking. Am I missing something, or are all of the features already covered by other media libraries?
--and they do--it is common sense that a person who licenses their code under the GPL should not be able to revoke that license. If it were allowed, then what would happen to any forks of the software, or people that merely had a copy of the source code? It would be an irresolvable legal situation. Don't give us the right to modify and view your code, and then try to take it away.
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.
This guy has every right to stop licensing his software under the GPL (note the whole revoke thing is spin from the GPL crowd). the only thing he can't do is expect to change the license of anyone who has a copy already, from that standpoint he granted them a copy of THAT software under the GPL which is a binding contract. this means you are free to carry on as normal with your GPL copy, he can't try charge you money or demand you take down your own distributions.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
That is exactly what he is trying to do. If you were to read the site he says you are not allowed to use or distribute it any longer and must delete any copies you have.
IF this is enforceable, it would fuel concerns about ANY kind of software license, if the author can arbitrarily revoke it at will. I just re-read a standard commercial EULA, it says that 'they' reserve to terminate the license IF you breach the terms of the party of the first part, the party of the 2nd part, etc.
I think a more likely scenario is that it will show an actual benefit of using open source software: if the original owner dumps/restricts it (and it's worth someone's while) it could be picked up and supported. If you use non-free software, you had better hope the company stays around, or you have their code in escrow..
The author is trying to spread FUD all over the interwebs.
See:
http://www.pchdtv.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=19528
http://www.penlug.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/DigitalTelevisionAtscap
I think someone should educate these people.
Funny that he exempts some files also; are these files others helped with? (Blowing his entire sole author argument out of the water).
He needs to either get the permission of any other contibutors or re-write their contributions in a non-infringing way. This may be easy if not many others have contributed but could be a real bear if they have or if someone else made a fairly critical contribution. Any other contributors still hold the copyright to their contribution and may not like the idea of someone taking their code private.
BTW, I seem to remember that the author of Snort took it "private" not all that long ago.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Frankly, I wonder what the causative factor was. Did someone threaten to sue him unless he pulled the code down?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
It gets interesting then. If he sues someone for copyright violation, I think it might end up coming down to whether they had already started using the software before he attempted to revoke the license or not, and if not, whether or not they were aware of the attempted revocation. If they had already started using the software, they could maybe make a good promissory estoppel argument that the license should continue for them.
All these branches lead to some puzzling legal questions, but let's just go down the promissory estoppel path. Say the defendant gets a continued license via promissory estoppel. Can they then redistribute? Or does this license from equity just extend to the use they were making of the software? What if a big part of their business was based on the fact that their product was built from GPL software, so getting a non-GPL license would not be the same for their business?
My conclusion is that it may be possible to in theory revoke the license, but it is fraught with practical problems. If you have GPL (or any other free software license) software that you've written, and want to take non-free, don't bother with the existing and past releases. Just make the license change going forward.
This has already been tried. Tuxracer was originally licensed under the GPL. After it became a bit more complete, the original author formed a company, and tried to make it closed source. End result: fork. He commercialized the code he owned, legitimately, and others took the GPL'ed source, and continued with it.
Unfortunately it appears that the GPL does not allow this particular action.
Only for him, maybe. For the rest of us, just the opposite is true. It is quite fortunate that this isn't permitted.
What?
Not very much money, or they would have competent/real lawyers.
Or, too much money, and they want to follow in Darl's footsteps.
I'm leaning towards column A.
-
1. Write software
2. ???
3. Mass distribution due to Barbara Streisand-slashdot effect
4. Profit!
but isn't this exactly what Jörg Schilling did with cdrecord a year or two ago?
I hereby give you the right to read and/or reply to this post.
..... memory ..... "from your" ..... brain ..... "and"/or destroy all ..... memories of it ..... "in your possession".
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"
A copyright owner can revoke outstanding licenses. The only way the GPL is non-revokable is if the original copyright owner has assigned the copyright to the FSF, as is recommended by FSF. If the original owner retains copyright, he can do as he pleases:
He can revoke licenses on existing and distributed copies.
He can modify the license after distribution.
He can (gasp) refuse to distribute source code for GPLed software.
Remember that the copyright owner owns the software and all rights to it. The license, even the GPL, doesn't ever take away rights of the copyright owner.
The author could conceivably release a *new* version under whatever license he chooses. There is nothing saying he has to continue to release under the GPL going forward. But the copies that have already been distributed under the GPL are out there and cannot be revoked. The people who have the code now can continue to legally modify and redistribute it under the GPL and there is nothing he can do about it. If the new version is closed source, people will simply continue developing the GPL'd version, and there is nothing the author can do about it.
On a similar note, I (Linus Torvalds) have revoked the GPL license for my code in the Linux kernel, effective immediately. If you are selling Linux, you are required to destroy all copies of unsold software and contact all your past customers and get back the copies you sold them and destroy those as well. I you are running workstation or servers even in critical enviroments, you are required to immediately turn off the power to these systems and destroy the hard drive on them. If you are selling or have sold systems with Linux embedded in them (e.g. Linksys routers and Tivos etc) you are required to destroy all unsold systems and re-acquire all systems sold in the past and destroy those too. If you have a Tivo or a Linux based router or other Linux based embedded systems at home, you are required to immediately power these off and destroy them. Please keep ample evidence of the destruction of this property so that you are properly able to defend yourself in court at a later time.
Thanks and God bless America.
America #1.
-Linus
Prior posters are correct. He cannot do this. I'd actually never heard of this program, but I'm going to download it and put the source up for download on my website (and I'm sure what I download will have the GPL files in it).
The software is not bad, but I've found it a bit buggy, especially compared to pchdtvr, which was pretty solid. It is surprising that he would do this now, pchdtvr has been out since at least 2005. I notice that it is still available from pchdtv.com.
Everyone that has the source, mirror it. Everyone that can get it, get it. Distribute it as far and wide as possible under the GPL.
Are you telling me that Yanni can, as the copyright holder, send me a C&D ordering me to destroy all copies of his albums??
Don't you mean GNU is stupid?
And no one has posted the mirror?
:-)
Is this Slashdot... or Wired?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Does this software have an dependencies on other GPL code? Did it ever? If so then the author needs to call a whaaambulance and shut up about the whole idea before he gets sued for copyright violation.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Res publica non dominetur.
For the future, yes, they can. Retroactively, not so much. The copyright holder(s) can change the license should they want to, to any other license. This includes closing the source. Of course, this cannot be done retroactively, but they could take down CVS/tar balls/etc under there control and continue with the different license. This, of course, is played down by RMS and the GPL zealots because it isn't there agenda.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate
But, I think that this highlights the need to choose your license(s) carefully. I'll also note that a gigantic warning appears when one chooses a license when registering a project at sf.net... which is where this was posted... god this guys a dumbass.
"""
And the more pressing question, why?
"""
Because, most people's agenda doesn't coincide with RMS' and situations can and do change.
You can contact the inkling guy from the following details and give him a piece of your mind:
Registrant ID:20431221-NSI
Registrant Name:No-Op Org.
Registrant Organization:No-Op Org.
Registrant Street1:20620 Sullivan RD
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:New Caney TX New Caney
Registrant State/Province:TX
Registrant Postal Code:77357-7404
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.28122813
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:rmoyers@NOP.ORG
He shutdown his web server to prevent anybody from grabbing the archives of his atscap and pchdtvr source code that he had backed up and offered as mirrors previously.
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.
Isn't he now no longer eligible for sourceforge hosting?
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
If you give me a piece of code under a license, and I didn't do anything to terminate my rights under the license, I have my rights. It's not a contract, you can't terminate it. You still hold the copyright, so your next version can be under any license you want, GPL binds everyone except the copyright holder.
The only exception would be if you didn't have the right to give me that code in the first place (like the already mentioned AOL deal). If you grab someone else's code and slap GPL on it, this does not make the code suddenly free for all.
As president of General Motors, it is my responsibility to inform GM owners that as a direct result of the declining image of our company, all GM vehicles must be removed from the road as they represent the image of GM and serve to tarnish it further. All designs are copyright by GM, and as such, we reserve the right to recall all vehicles. Therfore, I hereby do revoke usage rights of all GM vehicles and properties on behalf of the shareholders and the board of directors. If you have a driveable GM vehicle in your possesion, you are required immediately to drive it over the nearest bridge or into the nearest cement wall at a speed of no less than 60 miles per hour in order to ensure destruction. Note that we are not responsible for lost wages or medical expenses. Thank you for your mandatory, but appreciated, compliance. Together, we can mitigate the damage to the company's image.
thanks, also see here for the older version
Streisand Effect anyone?
The internet is like a wife. Everything is good and happy so long as you are giving but try to take away and she becomes an evil vindictive bitch.
I'd guess because nobody else contributed anything of substance to the project.
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
I don't see how that matters. The GPL is a license, not a contract. It doesn't grant rights. It's just an easy way of saying "if you agree to these conditions, you can use my copyrighted work". By distributing something under the GPL, he's not entering into a contract; he's simply waiving some of his rights under the copyright statute.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that being under 18 doesn't mean you can't waive rights. A quick search shows that people are typically mirandized down to age 14, for example.
There is something that everyone seems to forget, detrimental reliance. He distributed under the GPL and people reliaed upon that for their use or integration into their own products. Where he benefited from the GPL by the publicity and people providing him with fixes/patches/improvements, he cannot revoke it after receiving those benefits. He, of course can change the licensing on any FUTURE versions.
Fight Spammers!
The license is binding on both parties. A copyright owner cannot revoke licenses, "outstanding" or otherwise. For the GPL, this is even explicitly guaranteed by the license:
In that case, the author didn't own the copyright, so he never had the right to place the software under the GPL in the first place and the GPL never got revoked.
In this case, the author does seem to own the copyright, so when he put the software under the GPL, it's valid and can't be revoked.
This is why the GPL is a sham. It pretends to protect "freedom" of an inanimate or logical object by hijacking ownership for the "good" of people. The same people who rule by some pretend mob-rule and arrogantly think they are "saving the world" or some other bullshit. Get off the high horse of GPL and use a reasonable license.
I'm not saying it doesn't work great for some projects (Linux Kernel) but anyone who blindly accepts releasing their code under a license because it's popular and hip is a fool just like this guy.
Simple answer, if you want to retain ownership of your code and protect it from the hooliganism of the leftist GPL supporters, don't go for the GPL. There's a reason those projects release "community" editions.
It may be that this guy really is into a pounding from two camps instead of one...
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
How about a shorter answer: if you want to retain ownership of your code ... don't go for the GPL , or other permissive source licenses.
But isn't that a tautology - If you want to retain ownership of your code, retain ownership of your code. Whose ownership is hijacked?
GPL is great for some things. MIT/X is great for some things. Closed source is great for some things, etc. Take your pick.
The writer still holds the copyright. He/she just LICENSED to you the right to use it under a certain set of conditions. Nowhere in the license does it say that the licensee has been granted the license in perpetuity. Nowhere in GPL 2.0 does it state that the license can NOT be revoked. GPL 3.0, yes. GPL 2.0, no.
The copyright holder is still the copyright holder. He/she can remove the license whenever he/she wants.
And, as others have said, if legal issues make the software in violation of copyright, trademark, etc; you can't release it under the GPL in the first place. It's entirely possible that the revocation of GPL is because the software is "illegal" somewhere. (Likely the US, if anywhere. And please note that I'm using the term illegal to include something that may not be an actual violation of US law, but is an infringement on a patent or copyright.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Actually, the GPL isn't that big. Compare it to a proprietary EULA sometime.
It's also remarkably simple. I believe RMS designed it that way: instead of using legal language, he wrote it to be so simple it could be implemented in just about any legal system.
Which I seriously doubt, I'm pretty certain that posting on a blog isn't going to be seen as a valid way to revoke a licence.
What he needs to do is deliver a legal notice to every distributor of this software telling them that the licence has been revoked.
He can certainly relicense the code, but he can't revoke the license for existing code. From #4:
Unless he's assigned the copyright to them, they have absolutely no say in the matter.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:_jvFfGt_BTsJ:www.penlug.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/DigitalTelevision+pchdtvr-1.0.tar.gz&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Aaah, google cache, I love you...
especially the directions
"wget http://www.pchdtv.com/downloads/pcHDTV-1.6.tar.gz "
The file's still up, and the patch still under the GPL:
cat pcHDTV-1.6-cx88-0.0.4-patch | grep GPL
"GCAPTURE", "SCAPTURE", "SPLAYMODE", "SWRITEMODE", "GPLAYINFO",
+// distributed under the GPL licence.
Actually, the Constitution is a low level set of checks and balances.
As a whole it does make a good template of the high level concepts.
But it never specifies the high level concepts, because the moment they become specified is the moment lawyers can start perverting them. That's part of why it's so hard to talk about "freedom" and "privacy" and such as legal concepts. And that is as it should be, because one person thinks freedom is going to the websites he wants, and another person's idea of freedom is not having computers in her house. One person thinks that the right of privacy is to wear the clothes she wants and another thinks not having the right to wear no clothes is an invasion of his privacy.
That is a problem with the constitutions of many "modern" democracies with constitutions written after the US Constitution. They try to model US democracy by modeling the high level stuff instead of re-writing the checks and balances to fit the traditions of their own countries.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I thought that was fun once. Collect all the different things people do and understand them under a single theory.
Marriage has proved there are better things.
Besides, it is already known that the math is only the best model we have for a limited set of problem domains. Do you really want to squeeze 6 billion or so humans into a single domain?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Trying to screw people around for a long time tends to cause oneself a lot of confusion.
Refraining from trying to screw people around tends to let you see the world a lot better as it really is.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
"Unnamed persons with hidden connections to a certain well-known and very large software company are paying him to provide fuel for a little fodder, I mean, fodder for a lot of fud."
It's a theory, okay?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
No amount of publishing the change can undo the copies with the original license.
I think what he (or whoever is behind his "change of mind") is hoping is that the same theory that government use to assert that tiny announcements in the backs of newspapers are sufficient announcement of things like development districts, condemnations, liens, changes in ordinances, etc., will allow him to assert that an announcement on sourceforge (amplified by groklaw and slashdot, etc.) is sufficient notice.
That, and the hope that enough noise will cause anyone who might really want to use the code to suffer fear, uncertainty, and doubt sufficient to run away from the code.
On the other hand, I think someone mentioned already the possibility that his project wasn't getting enough attention, so he decided he'd rather have a bad name than none at all.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Maybe he's trying to get attention and distribution for his code ;-) Attempting to revoke the GPL almost guarantees someone will put a torrent on TPB immediately :-)
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
So, the origninal commenter was more right than I thought (good reason to post anon- no comeback). Here's a link to Google Code's mirror of a mildly old version of the software. You have to decode from html pages, but at least the code base is there.
Initial analysis; in the file xtscut.c the code contains the following:
As such I guess that the author has breached the GPL by distributing the software and then failing to make the full source code available. People who already have binary copies should probably contact the author and ask for a copy of the full source code according to the license of libmpeg2.
Because you're GIVEN the right to do X which you never had. You didn't have the right to fish but you BUY a license to do so. You don't have a license to sell alcohol, but you buy a license.
However, you do have the right to work for someone else, so you enter into a non-compete agreement which is a contract and you get paid for giving up your right.
If you break the rules for your fishing license (use a net when it's a fly fishing license) you have no right and have broken the law AND you STILL have no right to fish with a net. If you decide to work for a competitor, you have broken the agreement and you must pay compensation BUT you HAVE THE RIGHT to work for the competitor.
You say that GPL prevents a person from limiting their liability. Exactly HOW does selling an application allow you to limit your application. Once it is in the wild, you are still liable for the copies that are out there because somebody paid you for it. Well, this is no different. In fact, how does ANY license out there limit your liability?
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Shouldn't that be "Finland #1"?
I am getting so sick of pretentious twits trying to sound far smarter than they are. It's part of the overall decline of Slashdot but it's still sad to see.
not sure if it's ok, but it's from above.:
http://www.sharebigfile.com/en/file/5416/atscap-1-1rc9t3-tar-gz.html
It's not written inside the OS licenses.
...BUT...
It's due to the way copyright laws and licenses work.
Copyright law, basically says : you can't copy.
With proprietary license, the developer is the only one who can copy and distribute the software = the only point from which you can get the software.
Shall the developer decide to change the license, he can. And as he is the only source for the software, each new copy acquired by anyone on the planet will be under the new license term.
The people who already got the software under the older license still have it with that license attached, but as they CAN'T copy it, the old license can't propagate, the number of old-license software stays locked.
With OS license the situation is differnt : those license say (in an exaggerated way) "we give the additional authorisation to COPY or do pretty much EVERYTHING to it AS LONG AS you KEEP this FREEDOMS when you handle it to the next in the chain of copies". (= you got it under GPL, you give it under GPL to the next one).
So, one can get a copy from pretty much anyone else having one, and this copy will necessarily keep the same freedom of copy & modify as specified from the GPL.
Also one can freely develop and hack around the software and continue development using the software they got from anyone else.
So in that case the copyright holder IS NOT the only source from where to get the software.
The copyright holder CAN change the license of its software (as per copyright law....)
And people getting their copy from there will get copies under the new license.
people can also get copies from anyone else having the original GPLed software, because the attached license to these older copies clearly says that they have right to copy it.
The copyright holder CAN decide that any future version of the software will be under a new license.
But previous version, once they are released under GPL or some other similar law, CAN'T be taken back for the above reason.
XFree vs. X.org is a nice exemple of such phenomenon.
Xfree started releasing newer version using a license that didn't please users.
They could only get those new version with that license.
But that didn't stop the previous versions to be still around, under an open-source license.
X.org picked up that code and continued its development as authorised by that older license.
Opendivx vs. DIVX vs. XVID is a similar one.
DIVX networks start opendivx opensource project.
Then they decide to stop and release future versions as closed source DivX.
Last opensource code gets picked up by enthusiasts which continue opensource development in Xvid.
The only limitation to this is that only the copyright holder can CHANGE a license.
So the copy that continue floating around are locked under a specific license.
(Unless there are some specific authorisation in the licensing terms "GPL version 1 or later").
This has the following implication : shall the corporate work find new way to abuse the GPL and block the associated freedom (tivoization and patents come to mind), the FSF could invent a newer version of GPL to plug these holes, other project could migrate to this newer license, but the forked project can't because they aren't the copyright holders and the original copyright holders certainly won't allow them (As they moved to a commercial license).
This will leave forks at greater risk of being abused, at least until all of the code has been rewritten and all that newer author have given authorisation to re-license their code.
LAME is an example of a collection of patch under LGPL for the original MPEG Layer III reference code, that grew to the point where there was nothing left from the original code and LAME was pretty much a huge chunk of LGPL only.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Never release anything under the GPL - like all contracts relating to "intellectual property" it is evil.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Well that scrubs 2008 as the Year of the Linux Desktop.
I am anarch of all I survey.
So now that the project has been made defunct on sourceforge, where can I download the GPL source code for atsc and pchdtv?
(I'm a little surprised there isn't already an easily visible "download it from here" comment here.)
If anyone has copies of these two programs, please post them. Sourceforge seems to have removed them, so the software is de facto revoked unless some copy is posted somewhere. Unfortunately, I have no copies to post, but I hope it is not too late to make the software free again.
...but that's not even the situation.
1. He cannot take back the license and is actually required to continue to distribute source to anyone who he has given binaries to, under the terms of the license he released his code under. In practical terms, if the work was all his, he could probably stop distribution. He could not stop anyone else from doing so,
2. The moron has been trying to revoke the GPL only for certain source files as he does not own copyright on the rest. He borrowed some from ffmpeg by the looks of things, which is under GPL, qualifying his entire work as a derived work and meaning that he cannot under any circumstances go closed source on this. It's not his decision. He can't even go closed source on future versions.
He links to libmpeg2, the GPL applies to everything he's done so far. He'd have to rework the thing not to link GPLd libs.
His program links against libmpeg2, a library that is under the full GPL license.
He benefited from GPL code and others hard work, he doesn't have much in the way of rights here.
#!/bin/sh
/dev/dvb/adapter0/dvr0 > $file.ts & ### Begin the alleged DMCA violation
### Select our victim tv network
channel="$1"
### Set the duration of the violation.
sec="$2"
let sec=sec*60
### I am guessing that each video frame copied will result in 100 dollars of damage
### Calculate fine at 30 fps
let fine=sec*3000
### TODO: Automatically detect 720p stations to double the calculated fine. What about telecined video?
### Where to put the contraband
file="$3"
azap -r $channel &>/dev/null ### Simply sets a few ioctls
azappid="$!"
cat
catpid="$!"
sleep $sec
kill $azappid $catpid
mencoder -ovc lavc -oac lavc -o $file.avi $file.ts ### Encode our "stolen" hollywood property
rm file.ts
echo "Warning: You may be liable for $fine dollars of damages!"
exit 0
OMG I am at such legal risk! If someone distributes this script, I can get sued! I hereby demand that you remove all copies of this script from your browser cache!
Would you like to buy a bridge?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Possibly he's keeping the duress a secret because he's under duress?
A credible threat, legal or illegal, usually contains a sub-threat about telling anyone, especially the cops.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Of course, it goes without saying that IANAL. However, I do have some personal experience with irrevocable trusts. And they are, for all intents and purposes, irrevocable. But the difference here is that an irrevocable trust explicitly states that it's irrevocable (and, BTW, it's not a contract, same as the GPL). The GPL relies on implicit smoke and mirrors to ensure its irrevocability.
That's too bad...it would have just been simple to have explicitly stated it in the GPL, rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation.
Of course, there's also the practical implications of all this: Once something escapes to the Internet, it's there for perpetuity. So I do question the wisdom of someone who thinks they can actually delete something off the Internet.
Still, I don't believe this issue is as cut and dry as the FSF legal minds would have everyone to believe.
...has lost this kind of action in court.
The version on SourceForge is developed from Frankel's original sources. It's also pretty moribund; mainly it's waiting for someone to come pick it up and continue development. (It has a few rough edges, and hasn't been worked on in about two years.) If you know anyone who'd like everlasting fame and glory, they'd be much appreciated--some of us are still happily using WASTE.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I had previously said the guy couldn't do this, but it looks like he can for the most part, at least in the U.S. From U.S. 17:
Nothing I see in the conditions would seem to prohibit the guy from doing this, in particular:
There is an exception for derived works created prior to the revocation, but other than that...Could be that he made an error and included stuff that wasn't his to decide over. The entitiy that owns those parts of the code can do whatever they wish with their code. Like SCO, when they tried to argue that some of their code went into the Linux kernel. In the end I guess none of their code went into the kernel.
What they should do is identify the parts that were not his parts.
then tough shit for C; he should have made sure that B had the right to sell him the car. Namely that B had a pink slip and a valid title and registration. C didn't perform due diligence. Secondly this doesn't punish C; C didn't have a car prior to 'trying to buy' this one, and won't have one still. C just has to go buy another car. It's not A's problem that C doesn't have a car, or whether C needs one or not. Its irrelevant. The car was not B's to sell, and not C's to buy. A gets his car back from B. C gets his money back from B. B goes to jail doesnt collect 200$ and doesn't pass go.
C is neither punished nor rewarded because the reality is the only harm to C was deception. C is reverted back to the reality C existed in prior to engaging in this "false" sale. The ONLY harm that came to C is that C's time was wasted. Giving A the car back resolves A's problem, in doing so C's only "harm" is the money that could then be seen as stolen from C by B. B returns C what C paid for car. As for punitive punishments thats for the civil courts and a whole other crap shoot.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
I think this raises the question: what if the author holds the only copy of the GPLed source when they change the license?
Is the author bound, as a former code distributor, to continue to provide access to the GPLed version of the source code?
Can they be sued for not doing so?
Does that make the GPL a contract rather than a license?
Could this be another test case with some evil corporation backing it?
Are you kidding? This applies to copyright transfers granted by license or transfer after the end of the 35-year period following the grant. Hardly relevant here.
(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.
I read the note posted on sourceforge where the author said repeatedly that it would be in everyone else's interest to delete and remove any copies of the material wherever it may be. That is not exactly accurate. It may be in his interest for these items to be removed. I would be interested to know if anyone else made any contributions to the project. I mean after all that is the way it works, you open the code, and people contribute with the subsequent use for their own purposes. If anyone contributed work, and then he withdrew the GPL, that would be THEFT.
qwerty
disclaimer: IANAL
What seems more reasonable to me is that, when someone tries to relicense the code under GPL V3, the presence of a non-free patent (or whatever the condition is) would instantly violate the new license, and distribution would not be allowed. While the copyright holder might have *allowed* later versions of the GPL to be substituted, there was never any guarantee that such redistribution would be legal. To me, the latter sounds a lot more like a warranty than a copyright license.
atscap-1.1rc9t3.tar.gz
pcHDTV-1.6.tar.gz
He can revoke the grant of license, but only after 35 years. This is spelled out by U.S. copyright law, not the GPL. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203
I forgot about his day until Saturday, and all the haggis was sold out at the grocery store.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Jimbo, Dolph & Kearney: We just heard this code existed!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
This link might interested those following this particular subthread.
The first one to check is of course Groklaw, which provides the following answer (see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163): "No. One can't retroactively revoke licenses previously granted, unless the license terms allow you to do so. The most you can do is stop granting new licenses."
Simple and just as you would expect.
If he has distributed the software in binary form, then does not offer the source to the downloaders, then he's in violation of the GPL. It doesn't matter that he's the author of the software - the license says if you distribute binaries, you MUST make the source available (I think for 3 years) at no (unreasonable) cost.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
You have to accept that in order to use the code of a particular library, that is under the GPL and you have been given permission to copy under the terms of the GPL, you must open your code. As soon as you link your program to it, you don't have permission to have your copy of the library any more.
It's very well established that the GPL applies to runtime linking as well as static linking. Maybe you ought to read it.
A contract is an agreement between parties where they exchange considerations (benefits). A contract by itself can NEVER enable you to do something that is otherwise illegal. It is common for contracts to include license grants (like software "EULA"s). Example: You can use my fishing cabin next Thursday if you pay me $100. We both must agree - you agree to give me bucks, I give you a one day license. If either doesn't agree, it don't happen.
A license allows you to do something that is otherwise illegal - such as fish, hunt, drive a car. License does NOT require agreement. Here's an example: You can use my fishing cabin next Thursday. See? You didn't have to agree - I just let you have a one-day license, whether you want it or not. If you don't agree, so what? The license is still sitting there.
Since copying, distributing, etc, source code is illegal without a grant of rights from the holder, and since the recipients of the software don't have to agree, the GPL is a license, not a contract.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
"forking shame"?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This bias however has nothing whatsoever to do with:
- the quality of their editorial opinions (as opposed to Slashdot they actuall *have* an editorial opinion, counter to Slashdot they are actually knowledgeable about legal issues, counter to 99% of Slashdot they actually read the stuff they write about. Besides, I haven't seen them shown wrong yet, mostly the opposite.)
- the quality of their reporting is quite impeccable (they show you where they get their data from, they tell you what they base their opinions on)
Lest you make a serious logical mistake, differentiate between your scepticism regarding their sources and their actual knowledge(which have so far proved impeccable) and their opinions (which you may be sceptical about but which they clearly highlight).
Better a knowledgeable site that has a bias (which it is honest and up-front about) than a whole stampeding herd of ignoramuses with a 10-minute attention span.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39292511,00.htm
Since 2006, Barracuda Networks has been receiving communications from Trend Micro's legal team requesting Barracuda either pay licence fees when using ClamAV, or stop incorporating the software into its products, according to Barracuda's chief executive and president, Dean Drako.
I don't know what you consider threats then, but if company X tells you to cough up or stop using an OS package that they claim infringes on their patents, *I* would consider that a threat.
I really don't see in what sense Groklaw supposedly made a mistake. In fact I think Groklaw's presentation of fact is correct. Unless you can point to solid evidence that shows otherwise I'll just have to assume that you misread the material you saw.
With the word "threatening" I referred to the essence of your post, which is to deny that Trend Micro accused ClamAV of patent infringement. It did. Denial of the main issue on a mere point of phrasing is not the way an honest debate is conducted, let alone with the language you seem believe is appropriate for you to use.
Apparently I have to be a little more precise to deny you any wiggle room that might allow you to use a loose phrase on my part as a cop-out. Well, here goes.
See this link:
http://www.usitc.gov/ext_relations/news_release/2007/er1221ee4.htm
The investigation is based on a complaint filed by Trend Micro Incorporated of Cupertino, CA, on November 21, 2007. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States of certain systems for detecting and removing viruses and worms, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe a patent owned by Trend Micro. The complainant requests that the ITC issue an exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
See the highlighted bits? Just to make things explicit for you: they show that Trend Micro really *did* accuse Barracuda of patent infringement. It did this by filing a complaint with the United States International Trace Commissions (USITC). Notwithstanding the fact that the USITC is not a district court, this clearly shows that Groklaw's report is correct, and your off-hand opinion is wrong.
Having settled that, the ZDnet article notes that Trend Micro had sent Barracuda a lengthy series of legal correspondence pointing out that in their view Barracude either had to pay them or stop using the OSS program ClamAV. Now the only ground they could have claimed that on is by pointing out that Barracuda used CLamAV which, allegedly, infringes on Trend Micro's patent. Since the end user is responsible for patent infringement of OSS software they user, this in effect means that Trend Micro accused Barracuda of patent infringement. So the ZNnet article I cited shows the same thing, namely your claim that Trend Micro did not accuse Barracude of patent infringement is wrong and Groklaw's representation is right albeit not as authoritativelty as the press release from the USITC.
Assuming for a moment that the link you provide does indeed contain the law that governs this particular case, further reading should have shown you this:
(3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.
As I read it: if you grant someone a license on copyright that you own then you have to wait 35 years before you get a 5-year period during which you may revoke your earlier grant.
Now I'm not completely sure if that's how the law should be interpreted, but it clearly shows the ill-advisedness of trying to interpret the law as amateurs. Instead I suggest you seek an informed opinion such as e.g. Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163)