Author of ATSC Capture and Edit Tool Tries to Revoke GPL 472
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?
May I be the first to say (Score:5, Informative)
Thank God for the GPL!
It is not allowed. (Score:4, Informative)
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=3D%3C%25%25%20gplv3-draft-1%20%25%3E&id=917 [fsf.org]
--Sam
P.S Click the link; it's more complicated than I've laid out here.
Good luck with that (Score:2, Informative)
GPL is not the issue (Score:4, Informative)
Moving forward, sure... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:copies already obtained (Score:4, Informative)
Read the post, that is exactly what he is trying to do. Near the end he writes:
FUD all around (Score:1, Informative)
See:
http://www.pchdtv.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=19528 [pchdtv.com]
http://www.penlug.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/DigitalTelevisionAtscap [penlug.org]
I think someone should educate these people.
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:4, Informative)
* 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.
Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Yes, it propogates. If the first person was not authorized to distribute the code, then the GPL does not make it valid. As the GPL prohibits licencing encumbered code, it does not apply, thus any distributions were not made under the GPL, and thus those distributions cannot be redistributed under the GPL as the original copy was never validly released under the GPL. Of course, IANAL.
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:3, Informative)
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:1, Informative)
I'm for sure not going to delete or stop using my copy.
I would really like to find a copy of what was the latest revesion before his change of heart.
I would also very much like to know what brought on his change of heart. So far, there is no information as to why he is attempting this action.
Tuxracer (Score:3, Informative)
GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:5, Informative)
> Now it's not under the GPL. Until he does that, any copies randomly floating
> around are under the GPL until his copyright expires
wrong.
the new version, with the one line change, is under a new license.
the old version, without the change, is still under the GPL and always will be. The GPL can not be revoked, although (assuming that all copyright holders agree) there is no requirement that future versions have to be under the GPL. if there's only one copyright holder, then he or she can change the license on future versions at will. but they can not revoke the GPL on previous versions.
when the software was originally licensed under the GPL, the author said "here's what you can and can't do with it". note that there was no clause in there for revocation of that license, it was granted in perpetuity. that is a deliberate and well-publicised feature of the GPL.
for those who might like to argue that the GPL is a form of contract (a dubious proposition in itself) and contracts require value to be exchanged by both parties in order to be valid, therefore the GPL "contract" is invalid, consider this: value HAS been exchanged in both directions. the recipient receives the value of the source code, the author receives the value of open source critique and commentary as well as the value of free distribution and publicity.
Re:FUD all around (Score:2, Informative)
A little more info (Score:3, Informative)
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 [pchdtv.com].
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.sharebigfile.com/en/file/5416/atscap-1-1rc9t3-tar-gz.html [sharebigfile.com]
Correction (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate [fsf.org]
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.
Re:Can you explain this? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea (Score:4, Informative)
You see, in almost all jurisdictions, they seek to harm the least amount of innocent people. So if you purchased something legally and you have no reason to think it might be stolen, then usually the worst that happens is that the original owns has to offer you a fair market price for the return of the item. Now this all goes down hill if you have an idea that it might have been stolen (your no longer innocent).
An example of this might be you walk into a jewelry store. You see a jewel encrusted watch that you purchase. The price seems reasonable but nothing hinting that it would be stolen. Now, if it turns out to have been stolen, there is a good chance that you won't have to part with it. But if you purchased the watch from the trunk of a car in an alleyway at a steep discount, your likely to have to hand it over. In rare occasions, and I'm not sure if this is more then rumor, you can be ordered to let the original owner purchase it from you at your costs or a fair market evaluation (usually whichever is more). They also determine if charges for receiving stolen property would be filed in this manor.
But seeing how this isn't unique physical property, as you mentioned, there are some special circumstances and theft doesn't really fit the bill. I'm thinking if the same idea was applied, it might be up to the owner or the original person who took credit for taking it to figure out how to limit distribution. But I'm not sure if liability would follow something if you weren't notified of the illegality. But copyright works differently so it would be a tough call in how it would be represented.
I'm only bringing this up to indicate that there might be more problems or aspects to the situation then what seems to be on the surface. I think your suggestion of attempting to be a common carrier or something similar with an exception from liability would be the best route if you were going to touch it.
that's different (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Screw the issue of contract (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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
Re:I read 200 comments at threshold -1 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPL is a LICENSE, not a copyright. (Score:4, Informative)
*ahem*
(from GPLv2 [fsf.org])
Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:3, Informative)
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 [groklaw.net] 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.
Re:Can you explain this? (Score:3, Informative)
Source: "Open Source Licensing" by Lawrence Rosen, Chapter 4, available at http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm [rosenlaw.com]
"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."
Re:It is not allowed. (Score:2, Informative)
You cannot revoke any version of the GPL as it is a perpetual and irrevocable license.
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:3, Informative)
He's within his rights to stop sharing, but can't force others to heed his request.
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL isn't written as being limited in length, and offering a period of use. It's all or nothing, no rights, or full rights to redistribute under the GPL. Expecting that to be revocable is like expecting your car purchase to be revocable, years later after the fact. If your purchase was a lease... otherwise, no.
Re:Screw the issue of contract (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:2, Informative)
He didn't just benefit from publicity (Score:3, Informative)
He benefited from GPL code and others hard work, he doesn't have much in the way of rights here.
Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sorry but the U.S and UK are not Civil Law Countries. Both of them are Common Law Countries. Civil Law refers to the Legal structure created by the Roman Empire and used throughout most of Europe with the exception of the UK and Possessions/Colonies (former/current) and the U.S.
Re:Where to find atscap and pchdtvr (Score:1, Informative)
Re:May I be the first to say (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL, but the GPL says:
"Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it."
So the act of distributing the program indicates the author's acceptance
of the GPL. US law takes a dim view of people trying to back out of
written offers.