Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 1 +-   author of ATSC capture + edit tool revokes GPL on Friday January 25 2008, @05:49PM Anonymous Coward

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2008, @05:49PM
gnu
An anonymous reader writes "http://sourceforge.net/developer/diary.php?diary_id=26407&diary_user=147583

Full text follows:

Date: 2008-01-11 14:45
Subject: PUBLIC NOTICE: atscap and pchdtvr GPL revoked

I have revoked the licensing under the GNU General Public License (herein after referred to as "the GPL") for the atscap version 1.1 codebase, all prior versions of the atscap codebase and all the various release candidates of the atscap codebase.

I have also revoked the licensing under the GPL for the pchdtvr version 1.0 codebase, all prior versions of the pchdtvr codebase and all release candidates of the pchdtvr codebase, including all of the various interim pchdtvr versions after version 1.0 and before the name was changed to atscap.

Unfortunately for the author, for code that is already distributed, this can not be done:

Note from the FSF's FAQ re the GPL:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?

No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn."
submission

This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?

    No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

    Just because the FSF says so, doesn't automatically make it so. In this case, I've seen claims floating around (no, I don't have a link handy at the minute) that the irrevocableness may not be binding because the recipient doesn't give anything up to get it ("lack of considerat

no brainer: A decision which, viewed through the retrospectoscope, is "obvious" to those who failed to make it originally.