Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?

Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?

[Ivan Ivanov]

Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare
license and is revocable by the grantor. Search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl"
online to find his messages which prove that, he is a lawyer and has
investigated this subject very well. I am CC'ing him in case you'd
like to request more information. So if you didn't like the Code of
Conduct covertly accepted behind the scenes against your will, and
maybe some other questionable political decisions in technical
projects (e.g. the recent removal of useful "weboob" package which
have been a part of Debian for 8 years but got removed just because
some mad SJWs suddenly got offended at its' name) - well you know what
to do, and maybe vsnsdualce will be happy to help with your case free
of charge.

Best regards,
Ivan Ivanov

вс, 27 янв. 2019 г. в 17:55, Thomas Schmitt <scdbackup@gmx.net>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > > In other words: Any copyright holder can *say* they wish to
> > > retroactively revoke the GNU GPL to some party.
>
> Well, everybody is free to express wishes. But a granted license with no
> applicable revocation clause is irrevocable.
>
> The copyright holders alltogether are entitled to grant any license
> they can agree on (and that is not illegal or legally void).
> E.g. they can grant non-GPL licenses for their GPLed software.
>
> What they cannot do is to revoke granted GPL on published versions.
>
>
> rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > I believe that the
> > original author of a package could do something like create further
> > modifications to the code and create a non-free version of the code.
>
> An example is the cdrecord-wodim fork. The copyright holders did not
> release newer versions of cdrecord under GPL. So some concerned Debian
> developers used an earlier GPLed version as base of their fork named
> wodim.
>
> > Assuming that is correct, people using (or basing modifications) on the
> > (presumably) older free version could continue to use and develop based on
> > that, but would not have rights to that new non-free version.
>
> I agree and practical examples show that we are not alone.
>
> The copyright of the original authors remains, so that the forkers cannot
> change the old license until they replaced all copyrightable imaterial of
> the original authors.
>
>
> Have a nice day :)
>
> Thomas
>

Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?

[vsnsdualce3]

> Note the word "irrevocable". So i think GPLv3 is safe.
You think wrong.

Do you know what an illusory promise is?
We'll you're staring at one there.

No bargained-for consideration (read: payment), No enforceable contract.
And, no, "obeying the license" isn't "payment": you have to do that 
regardless: otherwise you're committing copyright infringement, which 
you have a pre-existing duty to avoid.

On 2019-01-28 16:19, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ivan Ivanov wrote:
>> Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare
>> license and is revocable by the grantor.
> 
> Do you mean
>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/24/209
> ?
> 
> The GPL does not say that it can be rescinded at the will of the 
> grantor.
> In GPLv3 it is explicitely stated:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>   2. Basic Permissions.
> 
>   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 License explicitly affirms your unlimited
> permission to run the unmodified Program.  The output from running a
> covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
> content, constitutes a covered work.  This License acknowledges your
> rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Note the word "irrevocable". So i think GPLv3 is safe.
> 
> In GPLv2, the preamble states intentions which clearly contradict a
> reserved right to revoke the once given license. The TERMS AND 
> CONDITIONS
> paragraph 4 say that if "you" lose the license rights because of 
> violations,
> "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".
> This expresses a clear promise not to revoke the license from well 
> behaving
> license takers.
> 
> 
> Next the article quotes a conversation with Eben Moglen, lawyer of the
> Free Software Foundation.
> The only substance i see there is a reference to the principle that 
> gifts
> can be demanded back under some circumstances. In german law it is 
> because
> of the giver becomming needy or because the receiver shows outraging
> unthankfulness (e.g. an attempt to murder the giver).
> 
> I sincerely doubt that GPL is a gift in the sense of german BGB 516 - 
> 534.
> Especially paragraph 517 says that waiving income in favor of somebody
> else is not such a gift. The large number of license takers makes the
> situation quite different from the one expected by german law.
> 
> Further a demand to return the gift because of neediness would depend
> on a binding offer from a third party to pay money if the software is
> not under GPL any more. I think not even Microsoft Inc. would make such
> an offer, nowadays.
> 
> 
> Have a nice day :)
> 
> Thomas