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?

May I be the first to say

[kimvette]

FORK IT!!

Thank God for the GPL!

Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[mdenham]

He may be attempting to revoke the license for liability reasons (i.e., someone has made noises about suing him for having this software out there). Forking it means he's still liable, even if he's not associated with the fork at all.

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.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[zippthorne]

Actually, there's a good question in there.

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?

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[MarkRose]

Actually, there's a good question in there.

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.

I read 200 comments at threshold -1

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

And no one has posted the mirror?

Is this Slashdot... or Wired? :-)

Re:I read 200 comments at threshold -1

[GryMor]

I've submitted a project request to SourceForge for a GPLV3 fork of atscap-1.1rc9t. We'll see how it goes.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[gnasher719]

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.

In this case, the person who "revokes" the license claims that he is the sole author of the software in question (unfortunately, he doesn't write that he is the copyright holder, but if he isn't the copyright holder, then he doesn't have the right to give or deny permission to anyone, so we should assume he is the copyright holder).

So according to what he says, everybody who has the code right now has it legally. He also says he is revoking the GPL, he doesn't claim that the code was stolen from him, so anybody who received the code has it under the GPL license.

He has of course the right not to make any further distributions himself using the GPL, or not make any bugfixes available under GPL, or just not make any bugfixes available at all, and to ask people to please delete the software and not distribute it. However, anybody who has the software still has the right to distribute it, that is irrevocable. There is nothing at all he can do about it. If he tries to sue anybody for distribution, that would be thrown out of court in no time.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[zippthorne]

Yes, but if he's basically announcing that HE never had authority to distribute via GPL, and therefore everyone downstream has an invalid license, then the announcement is really an attempt to disclaim liability for the actions of people outside of his control.

It may or may not be the case in this instance, but it's certainly possible to imagine scenarios where people distribute code they have written entirely, but whose subject matter was in some way restricted. If they were confused or unaware of restrictions in the initial license and released their code out of altruism, is it really fair to expose them to unlimited liability, with no method of mitigating that liability once they realize their mistake?

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Kind of, Or at least thats what AOL claimed. See: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/31/1259206&mode=thread&tid=120&tid=126&tid=187&tid=95 [slashdot.org]

Short version: Justin Frankel/Nullsoft creates WASTE, an encrypted IM and p2p file transfer system. Releases it under the GPL.
Next day, AOL's lawyers wake up and find out. They say Frankel made it on AOL's time so it is AOL's code, and that he did not have the authority to release it and any distribution is copyright infringement at this point.

Not sure what happened to it then, I think the current version is a clean room implementation. It's kind of a moot point because theres better software out there from a security standpoint, but legality its kind of the exact precident you're looking for.

Now that I think about it, didn't Nullsoft's gnutella have a similar backstory, only without sourcecode release?

that's different

[nguy]

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.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[sumdumass]

IANAL, but you would not have the right to redistribute it, even unknowingly. I don't like the comparison to theft, but it is similar in that you're not going to be able to hang onto resold stolen goods if it goes to court. Then again, this would be more like a case trying to take something back that was already given, or at least appears to be. I'd imagine the burden would be on the "owner" to show monetary loss being caused down the chain, not from the original pirate. Still, if you were heavily redistributing something, my guess is you would do well to act as a common carrier or to pay attention to what is happening up the chain.

This is a sort of tricky situation. And I am glad you brought the idea of theft up because it raises some questions around intent.

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.

Re:

[Sique]

That's quite different from how it is handled here: You don't own property you bought in good faith if the property was stolen or the seller didn't have a right to sell it to you. All you can do is sue the seller to return the money you paid for the item.

Re:

[Sique]

But with your method the original owner ist wronged twice: First he loses his property, then to get it back he loses the money. What if the stolen object is some valuable item like an old painting, inherited from the ancestors? What if the original owner would have to sell his house to get it back?

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Stephan Schulz]

In most jurisdictions I know (certainly in civil law countries, the US, and the UK), you cannot acquire ownership of stolen property. If you buy something stolen, bad for you. It still belongs to the original owner. If you buy it while being aware that it as stolen, you are guilty of receiving stolen property, a rather serious crime. Indeed, in many jurisdictions this even applies if you should have reasonably assumed that it was stolen (the back alley huge discount scenario).

The motivation behind this is to make theft less profitable. If you could acquire actual ownership of stolen property, you would be willing to pay up to market price for it, and your interest would be to ''not'' inquire wether the item has been legitimately acquired by the fence. With the common arrangement, however, the buyers carries (part of) the risk, so fencing becomes a lot harder and less profitable.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

"Here I gave this away. Everybody photocopy it."

"No wait. I changed my mind. Destroy your copies! If you give away one of your photocopies, I will have you convicted for trafficking stolen property."

Do you see how stupid this is? Even a Lawyer would be able to understand.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

You must be new here.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but you said it, and I saw your UID, and I just couldn't help myself!

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[geoswan]

But the flip side is that if you obtain stolen property it doesn't matter if you accepted it in good faith, it's still not yours and you have to return it.

You remind me of the anorexic, who couldn't decide whether or not they were on a diet.

So they ate a whole chocolate cake.

Afterwards, they decided they were on a diet, after all. So they took steps to return the cake to the uneaten state.

It seems to me what the original author and copyright holder is saying is:
* I wrote some great software;
* I couldn't decide whether or not I wanted to release this software under the GPL;
* I thought my career would get a boost, from my reputation getting a boost, from releasing something good. Users might pay me consulting fees to maintain or extend my product. I might sell a book on how to use it. So even though I hadn't really made up my mind, I gave it away.
* Well, my career didn't get the boost I expected. So, now I have finally made up my mind. I don't want it out under the GPL after all.

This does not make anyone who received it from him a thief. It does not make anyone who received a legitimate copy, one that came with a copy of the GPL, and credited the original author, a thief.

And, IMO, it doesn't make anyone who redistributes his software, with the GPL liscense, and the appropriate credit, a thief.

Distributors who filed off the serial numbers, gave it away, or sold it, without crediting him, were thieves -- both before and after he tried to revoke the GPL.

Warning! Never do business with this individual! How could you tell he would honor any agreement you thought you had with him?

Re:Screw the issue of contract

[dgatwood]

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:

"The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever strained to what is just." (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13th, 1813)

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:Screw the issue of contract

[WNight]

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).

Re:

[skeeto]

I don't see any obvious terms in the GPL prior to version 3 that prevent revocation [...]

In the comments for this article, a lot of people seem to keep missing this part of the the GPLv2 [fsf.org]. 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

He didn't just benefit from publicity

[Nursie]

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.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Endymion]

someone has made noises about suing him for having this software out there

That's a pretty good theory. This whole thing reeks of panic and trying to sweep something back under the rug. I don't really get why, though... from what I can tell, this looks like some drivers for a set of vid-cap cards, and unless he copied the source code itself, simply writing original drivers for something isn't really something you can sue over.

Of course, it looks like this is some HD stuff (I see mentions of 720p and 1080i on a few pages...), so I wonder if there could be some MPAA pressure about not supporting some HDCP or other copy-restriction idiocy? Even so, unless he has a contract/nda/etc with them to not reveal such information, I still don't see how he could be liable in any way.

Re:Gee, what a *GREAT* idea

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

someone has made noises about suing him for having this software out there

That's a pretty good theory.

It's a terrible theory.
If he is doing it under duress, there is no good reason for him to keep the duress a secret.
Worst case the people who are now scouring the net for previous copies just to spite him will do exactly the same just to spite whomever is threatening the author. Best case he gets sympathy from the community in general and less people decide to defy the revocation.

And almost certainly wrong

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:

[gnasher719]

It's a terrible theory.
If he is doing it under duress, there is no good reason for him to keep the duress a secret.

Fully agreed with that. Let's say I wrote a tool that lets you copy Blueray DVDs and published it under the GPL. Some people would surely get very upset and threaten me - not because of any copyright problems with my code, but because of what the code does. And I start getting very, very afraid.

Now I wouldn't post that I revoke the GPL license. Actually, I wouldn't even think of revoking it, because _I_ don't mind if you have my copyrighted code and distribute it further. However, I would publish that th

Re:

[cheater512]

Or he is selling it to a company who doesnt like the idea of their software being free.

If it was because of a liability there is no reason why he wouldnt say so.

Re:

[sglider]

That would help... *IF* we had the source code. Anyone have it lying around?

Re:

[Endymion]

That only works if you got a copy in binary format or similar.

If, by some miracle, he actually did succeed in removing all copies of it, this action would actually work. (the old GPL versions wouldn't be "distributed" and therefor the source code requirements are not relevant)

I highly doubt that he could succeed in such an endeavor, though, unless he had all of 0 people using his code. If that was the case, why did he give it as GPL in the first place? @.@

Re:May I be the first to say

[gd2shoe]

No. The copyright holder is not bound by the GPL.
The copyright holder is bound by copyright law.
Other people who have copies are bound by the GPL (and copyright law).

The issue at hand here is really if: he can give people permission to redistribute using the code, and then change his mind after they've already received it under that agreement. If I had a copy, then he has already given me permission to redistribute without checking with him. He's now saying that only he can give permission to redistribute. What if I never check with him? He didn't require me to before. How am I expected to know? Am I bound by his new decession, or may I argue that I have received permission and am relying on it?

The "three years" clause that you mentioned only applies to someone distributing a binary without the source.

There is nothing in the GPL that says that he is obligated to do anything once he has released the code. He may cease to distribute entirely; he may distribute under a different licence of his choosing. The only question is: does copyright law allow him to revoke such a permission once granted?

IANAL

Re:

[WNight]

Copyright law isn't relevant here. Nor, is his original offer. He certainly isn''t releasing anymore copies of the work, but his deal (accepted license) with original downloaders can't be canceled by his later actions.

He's within his rights to stop sharing, but can't force others to heed his request.

Re:

[Score Whore]

If it is under the GPL, don't we simply need to ask him for it?

He is the rights holder of the software. The GPL doesn't apply to him, it applies to you. Even if you ever got a copy from him before he is under no obligation to provide you with anything ever again.

Re:May I be the first to say

[pasamio]

The GPL only applies to distribution. If he doesn't wish to distribute it any further then that is his wish. You cannot force someone to give you GPL code unless they distribute it or its products to you. Further more being the sole copyright owner he can change it so that it isn't GPL and then distribute it. None of the code would be GPL so you can't get him to give it to you. He cannot go out and change the licence on old code that has already been distributed because he has assigned the right of redistribution when he distributed those copies. GPL has no obligation on anyone but the distributor.

Re:May I be the first to say

[cas2000]

> All he has to do is make a one line diff and take it closed source.
> 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:

[stinerman]

Right.

I don't think we're disagreeing. The new version is whatever license the author wants it to be under. The old version(s) is still under the GPL.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Re:

[WNight]

An ongoing contract, sure. But the GPL acceptance is instantaneous, like a contract of sale. At that moment these people were given the right to re-release the software, under their own GPL license. He can cancel his original offer (provided he communicates his cancellation properly and to the right people) but he can't force other to play along.

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. Expect

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go:

http://www.sharebigfile.com/en/file/5416/atscap-1-1rc9t3-tar-gz.html [sharebigfile.com]

Yes, but

[DaveAtFraud]

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

Re:

[Just Some Guy]

FORK IT!!

No kidding. Mr. "Inkling", I'd like you to meet my old friend, Mr. XFree86. You two should have a lot to talk about.

GPL

[Akaihiryuu]

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.

Re:

[mrcaseyj]

Consider an original author releasing a work under the GPL. Then a small patch from a contributor is accepted into the project. If the original author then adds more to the project, then isn't the original author creating a derivative work? So after that point, the original author can't even relicense code that the original author adds to the project, because that code is a derivative of the GPL work, right? I think this is how it's supposed to work so that people wont waste their time contributing to a pro

Re:GPL

[cas2000]

> So after that point, the original author can't even relicense
> code that the original author adds to the project,

nope.

the author of any piece of code retains the copyright on whatever they write (unless they assign it to someone else - like the project's lead developer or the FSF), so they can take their code (both the original code AND anything they've added to it after contributed code is accepted) and re-license it.

they will, of course, have to delete or rewrite or negotiate a license for any code contributed by others.

(actually, even rewriting may be difficult - "clean room" reverse engineering is extremely problematic for free software or any other code where you've already seen the source)

NOTE: this still doesn't allow them to revoke the GPL on previous versions of the program.

of course, this is a good argument for contributors to GPL projects to either retain the copyright in their own name (or assign it to the FSF who they can trust to keep it free) so that projects they contribute to find it very difficult to go closed-source. it's also a good argument for choosing not to contribute to projects that require transfer of copyright for contributed code.

Mirrors

[Akaihiryuu]

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.

Solution

[zakezuke]

Change the name, start a new project, abandon the old. Problem solved.

Re:

[glwtta]

Change the name, start a new project, abandon the old. Problem solved.

I don't see how that solves the problem - he wants to revoke the license granted on previous versions of the software, abandoning it doesn't accomplish that. If all he wanted to do was change the licensing for future release, he certainly wouldn't need a new project for that.

It is not allowed.

[osssmkatz]

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 [fsf.org]

--Sam
P.S Click the link; it's more complicated than I've laid out here.

Could fuel anti GPL fire

[LinuxInDallas]

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.

Re:Could fuel anti GPL fire

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Come on guys, it's not hard.

[PhrostyMcByte]

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.

Re:

[AdrocK]

I find myself saying "RTF[Insert Acronym Letter Here]" every day. People sign acceptable use agreements, employment contracts, EULA's, policies, and a lot of other things without reading them. When they violate them they scream foul or "I didn't know I couldn't do that".

People have always done this, but recently it seems that they are getting away with it. Expressed penalties or consequences are softened or overturned with an "Oh, no one actually READS that stuff".

I'm not saying I read every single thing wo

Re:

[penix1]

What your whole argument ignores is the question of the person releasing a program under a license that they had no rights to release. In the closed source world that person would be sued off the face of the planet and the program goes with him. In the case of the GPL, the person is sued off the face of the planet and the true rights holder is screwed. Again, it goes back to the question of what do you do when the genie can't be put back into the bottle?

In my country, we have saying

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Don't you mean...

[Hamster Lover]

Don't you mean GNU is stupid?

why such incompetence?

[Endymion]

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?

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 /was/ a lawyer that wrote this, that's even more insane. Fire that incompetent freak!)

Re:

[LordLucless]

Even more strange is that people seem to think they can write up these fancy-sounding letters as if they were a lawyer.

What I think is strange is that some people seem to think there is some magical property of lawyers, that makes whatever they write special. If the letter written is true and correct, and legal, then it has all the value of one written by a lawyer. If the letter is false, then it's just as useless no matter who the author is.

Re:

[Endymion]

If the letter written is true and correct, and legal

Sure, IF it's true and correct. The problem is that many non-lawyer types tend to fail on that, thinking they know the law.

It's the same idiocy as, say, someone with no plumbing training going and re-piping their house, or someone with no medical training trying to cure their own cancer. They may get it right, and more power to them if they educate themselves and do it properly, but most people will screw things up.

As is obvious in this case. It's more an

Re:

[Endymion]

While this is certainly true, and there are always lots of finer points to argue about in the GPL, I am still amazed when people seem to completely miss the point of the whole thing. The fact that the entire point of the GPL is to guarantee access to the source code of a project makes statements like this guy's rather insane.

Maybe I can blame ESR for this, actually... with all his dilution of the Free Software Movement with his new "open source" terms and such. It has created a huge new group of people that

Re:

[Endymion]

the deficiency of language in general

Sure, but you can recurse such skepticism out to infinity, and that's not really useful. In physics, you can apply reductionism to everything and end up using quantum mechanics to solve macro-scale events, because you aren't really certain that the macro-scale even is true. Newton's laws of motion are deficient approximations only. Except that you don't. That's insane. In the same way, you can doubt the definition of every word in every language (and some lawyers certain

Re:

[Endymion]

in fact, according to the WIKI and several other sources it *is* a contract

And the wiki is such a good source of reliable legal information?

From the GPLv2:

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to...

(all emphasis mine, of course)

You will note that even though most EULA's

Good luck with that

[CSMatt]

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.

Re:

[XaXXon]

You don't "change" the copyright on something. You just grant a different type of license for newly made copies (copyright - right to copy). This is where this guy has lost touch with reality. Once you've allowed a copy it stands alone. As some other posters mentioned, it's not a contract.

GPL is not the issue

[h4rr4r]

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.

Moving forward, sure...

[crankyspice]

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.

Why? many possible reasons...

[tftp]

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 source?

[daeg]

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?

Wiggle room

[Spazmania]

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.

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

A very good point. If, for whatever reason, the author's original grant of the license was bad...

A good lawyer would look long and hard for such a technicality.

Request Denied

[ewhac]

If revoking the GPL were possible, Microsoft could simply buy the copyright to any GPL project it deemed a potential threat and revoke the licensing (existing users would get a license pricing break 12 months later on Microsoft LS, Microsoft CAT, Microsoft FIND, Microsoft IFCONFIG, etc...).

Frankly, I wonder what the causative factor was. Did someone threaten to sue him unless he pulled the code down?

Schwab

Might work, might not

[harlows_monkeys]

I know the FSF likes to say that the GPL is not a contract so the ordinary contract rules don't apply, but the courts have tended to see free software licenses as in fact being contracts. So I think we need to operate under the assumption that it IS a contract and this is a contract issue.

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 no

Tuxracer

[ashridah]

This has already been tried. Tuxracer was originally licensed under the GPL [wikipedia.org]. 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.

Revoke your right

[Mistlefoot]

I hereby give you the right to read and/or reply to this post.

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" ..... memory ..... "from your" ..... brain ..... "and"/or destroy all ..... memories of it ..... "in your possession".

Linus Torvalds to revoke everybody's Linux license

[linuxguy]

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

A little more info

[Lightn]

I've been wondering what happened to the project. I upgraded from pchdtvr about a month ago and shortly thereafter the project was deleted from sourceforge. Is that even normally possible? I though I had heard comments to the contrary. His web page is also gone. The only remaining info that I can find is here [penlug.org].

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].

Dependencies?

[Just Some Guy]

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.

Silly Rabbit . . .

[jgaynor]

Res publica non dominetur [youtube.com].

Correction

[Secret Rabbit]

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 [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.

Sourceforge ToS

[Chris Snook]

Isn't he now no longer eligible for sourceforge hosting?

It's Meaningless

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

He can certainly relicense the code, but he can't revoke the license for existing code. From #4:

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.

Re:

[schon]

he can do whatever he damn well pleases

Well then, let's see him put toothpaste back in the tube, or travel backwards in time.

He can *try* to do whatever he damn well pleases, doesn't mean he actually *can*.

Re:IANAL, but...

[andy314159pi]

Well then, let's see him put toothpaste back in the tube,

So you are saying that if he can put toothpaste back into the tube then we'll let him change the license on the software?

Re:IANAL, but...

[Dun Malg]

Stop being a fucking moron.

I think he'd have an easier time with the toothpaste thing.

Re:IANAL, but...

[Spazmania]

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.

Re:

[PAjamian]

Oh, but it DOES.

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 on

Re:copies already obtained

[RattFink]

...he can't try charge you money or demand you take down your own distributions.

Read the post, that is exactly what he is trying to do. Near the end he writes:

If you are currently using the atscap or pchdtvr packages,
or any part thereof, it is in your best interest to remove
the software from your system(s) and destroy all copies in
your possession.

If you have incorporated the atscap or pchdtvr codebase, or
any part thereof, into any of your projects, it is in your
best interest to remove any and all of my code from your
project(s).

If you are currently distributing the atscap or pchdtvr
packages, or any part thereof, it is in your best interest
to destroy all copies in your possession and notify all
recipients of either the atscap or pchdtvr packages, or any
part thereof, that the licensing under the GPL for both
packages has been revoked by the author.

Re:copies already obtained

[Dun Malg]

"...the licensing under the GPL for both packages has been revoked by the author."

What a fucking rube. He can't de-license a GPL'd piece of software any more than he can un-screw his pregnant sister! If such a thing were possible, you'd have seen Microsoft repeatedly paying off key individuals in the Linux "source chain" to render the OS largely undistributable.

"...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!

Re:

[schon]

the whole revoke thing is spin from the GPL crowd

Umm, so the author of the software is "the GPL crowd"??!?! Because if you bothered to read his post, you would see these words:

"the licensing under the GPL for both packages has been revoked by the author", followed by "PUBLIC NOTICE: atscap and pchdtvr GPL revoked"

How does that foot of yours taste?

Re:

[timmarhy]

oh please, your quote doesn't prove jack shit, because it doesn't place a time on when he is removing the GPL from his software.

however, it appears i'm still wrong since one of the posters above points out in his last paragraph at the end of his post he's telling people to remove the software from their computers, which he just can't do as i've already stated.

Re:

[schon]

oh please, your quote doesn't prove jack shit

Yeah, except for the part where the author uses the word REVOKE, which you said was "spin from the GPL crowd", right?

Perhaps you should refrain from posting until you grow up a little bit. You'll make yourself look like much less of a fool.

Re:

[Sneftel]

Please, allow me to be the twelfth person to encourage you to read the article, and to make accusations about your intellect, sexual prowess, and/or parentage!

Re:

[timmarhy]

whats your point, that i'm some how the first person in the history of /. to skim TFA and miss something at the end of it?

Re:

[Psychotria]

Funny that he exempts some files also; are these files others helped with? (Blowing his entire sole author argument out of the water).

Re:

[Akaihiryuu]

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).

Re:

[awehttam]

It's kind of weird this would happen. Assuming this isn't a result of legal pressure, I wonder what (happened to have) changed the authors perspective of:

The following archives are released under the GPL. This is because the GPL helps people learn for free. You may or may not find these archives helpful. Respect the GPL and give credit, and source code, where it is due. Good Luck!

web.archive.org [archive.org].

Re:

[kryten_nl]

Bullshit

Re:

[snkline]

Not necessarily. If you take the legal position that a license agreement is a contract, the author simply can't unilaterally revoke the license. "revoking" the license is essentially a modification of the contract, and has to be agreed to by both parties. Now, one party can try to claim to contract is voided, but then it is up to them to show it legally is, in court.

Not under GPL 3 (or V2 or Later)

[maz2331]

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 attempti

Re:

[n2rjt]

That would be the moral thing to do. :-)

Seriously, though, it's a crazy scenario, and IANAL (I don't know what I'm talking about) but I believe he could, or more likely, the record label that owns copyright of his works could. But of course they wouldn't.

I'm not trying to say everyone else is wrong and I'm right, but I wanted the Slashdot millions to stop and think about this a bit.

Re:

[chuckjuhl]

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 b

Re:

[Workaphobia]

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 [rosenlaw.com]

"A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically,

Re:I hereby declare myself the king of Slashdot!

[Spazmania]

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.

Re:GPL is a LICENSE, not a copyright.

[skeeto]

Nowhere in GPL 2.0 does it state that the license can NOT be revoked.

*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 [fsf.org])