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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read the post, that is exactly what he is trying to do. Near the end he writes:
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
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.
He can in fact DO anything he wants. He just can't UNDO things unilaterally. Its his privilege to cease distributing the code under the GPL. However, he probably* can't unilaterally revoke his PRIOR release of the code under the GPL.
* Courts frown on indefinite contracts and licenses. They can be enforceable but generally must meet more stringent criteria to be legal. Also if he can find a way to void the original grant of license then he doesn't need to revoke it because legally it never existed. For example, if he was under 18 or included a copyrighted work for which he had no permission to grant the license.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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
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.
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"
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Uh, No he couldn't. I license once granted cannot be revoked unless there is an explicit revocation clause or the license is for an explicit, finite term, or the license had been used in a manner contravening the terms explicit terms of the license. further, unless otherwise explititely prohibited or limited, a license is transferrable at will. Think about it: to hold otherwise would make the law of licensing (and other contractual forms of restricted property usage like leases)undeterministic. It would be like saying Castro can void the US leasing agreement at Gitmo made by the Trujillo regime. That's all Black Letter Law. Obviously there are no other property rights lawyers chiming in here, or they would also be explaining that this is a non-issue. The GPL is enforcable and the license can not be revoked, so long as the license cannot be found to be "void ab initio" such as where there was a legal impediment for the copyright holder to enter into the license arrangement from the beginning. Duh . . .
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"...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!
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
It sounds like in this case he is the sole contributor of the code in question, so he did not gain anything from them. Further, other people's reliance on a piece of software doesn't determine revocability of the license. Microsoft can revoke your license because you pirated Office even if your business relies on it.
What you're talking about, presumably is promissory estoppel. That doesn't apply unless the author made some sort of promise that the code would always remain available under the GPL. While we commonly interpret the GPL to be implicitly "free forever", I don't see any obvious terms in the GPL prior to version 3 that prevent revocation, so certainly no such promise was expressed. Whether it is implied or not is certainly not clear cut, but my gut reaction is to say that no, no such promise was in any way implied, either.
The lack of a revocability clause was fixed in GPL v3 with the clause "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met." This clause notably does not appear in prior versions of the license. It should also be noted that although the FSF's lawyers claim that the GPL is irrevocable, one could reasonably assert that the inclusion of such a clause in v3 of the GPL is an indication that the FSF's lawyers are aware that this was a deficiency in the previous license and that irrevocability is neither stated nor implied by the GPL prior to version 3. As such, unless this has been licensed under GPLv2, it is implicitly revocable by the author, with the caveat that if it was distributed with a "v2 or later" clause, it may or may not be, depending on whether the court determines such a substantial change in the license terms perpetrated by a third party (the FSF) to be unconscionable....
In this particular case, the license appears to have changed from "version 2 or later" to "version 2 as published by the FSF" in 2005. This would imply that anyone obtaining it prior to that date could redistribute that rather old version, but only if the "or later" clause holds up. If I were arguing for the author, however, I would note that the GPLv3 process began about then, and that there was, in fact, no later version at the time, and that his change of terms makes it very clear that the author did not intend for it to be licensable under the substantively different terms of GPLv3. IMHO, this significantly diminishes the chances of even pre-2005 copies being redistributable, as that clause was technically revocable at the time (as was the entire license). It may also be significant that the irrevocability clause was not in the license until after 2005. It isn't clear whether the courts would interpret the "or later" clause in the context of licenses available at the time the clause was revoked or "forever", but the former seems more likely since the alternative is the civil equivalent of an ex post facto law, of which Thomas Jefferson had this to say:
Source: Wikipedia
In short, the determination of revocability may depend on whether ex post facto contracts are held to be legal in a particular jurisdiction. My gut feeling, though, is that a GPL license should never be assumed to be a permanent grant of lic
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
He can certainly relicense the code, but he can't revoke the license for existing code. From #4:
I've submitted a project request to SourceForge for a GPLV3 fork of atscap-1.1rc9t. We'll see how it goes.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
*ahem*
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.(from GPLv2)
The text of the GPL is a contract. Licenses are simple grants--permission to do x, within the scope of y, except where z. The GPL requires further action, requires active agreement, and takes away rights from licensees. The GPL is not purely a license, but EULA like the others--a license created by contract.
Bzzzt, wrong.
The GPL is a license in that it grants additional privileges not already granted under copyright law. There is no contractual obligation on the part of the recipient except that the GPL is the only means by which he can get those privileges so if he doesn't agree to it then he does not have any other means to obtain permission to copy and (re-)distribute the software (unless the software is dual-licensed). The only way that your privileges under the GPL can be revoked is if you violate one of its provisions.
If I were to redistribute atscap and conform to all the conditions required by the license and this guy were to take me to court to try to stop me, all I would have to do is show the license that I recieved with the software which explicitly gives me permission to redistribute to the judge and the case would be dismissed (note: IANAL and it may not be quite this easy, but that is the general principle of it).
BTW, Groklaw has had a very good article on the difference between a license and a contract a few years ago, I highly suggest reading it, especially if you fail to grasp why the GPL is a license and not a contract.
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
Wrongo. Licenses can be revoked by the rights holder because they are *not* contracts, at least in their basic form. Contracts must have an offer, acceptance, and consideration (payment or something similar), and open source licenses lack the latter. This situation is not applicable to non-free software.
Source: "Open Source Licensing" by Lawrence Rosen, Chapter 4, available at http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
"A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked. The term interest in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration - a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law - in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that the and she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests."
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
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.
Contracts of sale don't explicitly spell out that they are irrevocable, it's how sales work.
Similarly, you can't reasonably write a license that doesn't require your participation, doesn't record a start date, can be re-entered by the person at will, can be re-granted at will, etc, to be limited in span. It would require future communication to even allow the GPL to be revocable, something it does not require. You need never speak to the author, let alone after accepting the GPL.
You could not reasonably expect to be able to revoke this contract, and thus could not reasonably expect to have it revoked upon you. Many contracts and licenses contain language, and requirements (paying for access, asking permission again in x years, etc). There are clear ways to write these contracts and the GPL contains none of them. Further, the author picked the license, presumably because he understood it and liked it. If this was a case of a user who entered into a GPL-like contract with little knowledge, they might reasonably make the claim that the irrevocable nature was unreasonable. Instead, the author, the only party with the ability to negotiate terms, explicitly picked this license.
Finally, I don't see why a later indication of his changing intent matters. He offered a deal, people accepted it. Case closed. He seems to have decided that he shouldn't have offered that deal, but he did and is bound by it. It's the nature of people to feel buyer's/seller's remorse when they find the true value of things, but sales are still final (with some exceptions).
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
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.
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.