Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #204696 > unrolled thread

Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2019-01-27 12:50 +0100
    Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 14:30 +0100
      Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-01-27 14:50 +0100
      Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2019-01-27 16:00 +0100
      Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2019-01-27 21:10 +0100
      Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2019-01-27 21:10 +0100
    Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-01-27 15:40 +0100
      Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-01-27 20:50 +0100
        Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 21:10 +0100
          Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 22:20 +0100
        Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2019-01-28 00:50 +0100

#204696 — Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked?

Howdy all,

Recently in this forum, some concerns have been raised about works
covered by GNU GPL. In particular, whether a recipient of a work,
received under conditions of the GNU GPL, can have the freedoms of the
GNU GPL later withdrawn in that same work.

To reassure those who might worry whether they can reply on the freedom
granted in a work, it is worth reading the GNU FAQ document for the GNU
GPL at the Free Software Foundation:

    [For any GNU GPL-licensed work,] the public already has the right to
    use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

    <URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty>

The same answer is in the FAQ specifically for the GNU GPL version 2.0
<URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty>.

You can read more in the Software Freedom Conservancy's document
_Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial
and Guide_, specifically in §7.4 “GPLv2 Irrevocability”. That concludes:

    Whether as a matter of a straightforward contractual obligation, or
    as a matter of promissory estoppel, a contributor’s attempt to
    revoke a copyright license grant and then enforce their copyright
    against a user is highly unlikely to succeed.

    <URL:https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4>

In other words: Any copyright holder can *say* they wish to
retroactively revoke the GNU GPL to some party. However, unless that
party has violated the conditions of the GNU GPL grant they originally
received, there does not appear to be any enforcible threat of
revocation that would succeed.

I hope these, along with the many court cases world-wide that have
tested the GNU GPL and found it to be enforcible, can reassure those
considering whether a particular copyright holder's whim can revoke the
freedoms guaranteed in a GNU GPL-covered work. I'd say there's nothing
to worry about from those threats.

-- 
 \       “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them |
  `\    to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their |
_o__)                      own desires.” —Susan Brownell Anthony, 1896 |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#204697

On Sunday, January 27, 2019 06:47:05 AM Ben Finney wrote:
> Howdy all,
> 
> Recently in this forum, some concerns have been raised about works
> covered by GNU GPL. In particular, whether a recipient of a work,
> received under conditions of the GNU GPL, can have the freedoms of the
> GNU GPL later withdrawn in that same work.
> 
> To reassure those who might worry whether they can reply on the freedom
> granted in a work, it is worth reading the GNU FAQ document for the GNU
> GPL at the Free Software Foundation:
> 
>     [For any GNU GPL-licensed work,] the public already has the right to
>     use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
> 
>    
> <URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty>
> 
> The same answer is in the FAQ specifically for the GNU GPL version 2.0
> <URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#CanDevelope
> rThirdParty>.
> 
> You can read more in the Software Freedom Conservancy's document
> _Copyleft and the GNU General Public License: A Comprehensive Tutorial
> and Guide_, specifically in §7.4 “GPLv2 Irrevocability”. That concludes:
> 
>     Whether as a matter of a straightforward contractual obligation, or
>     as a matter of promissory estoppel, a contributor’s attempt to
>     revoke a copyright license grant and then enforce their copyright
>     against a user is highly unlikely to succeed.
> 
>    
> <URL:https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007
> .4>
> 
> In other words: Any copyright holder can *say* they wish to
> retroactively revoke the GNU GPL to some party. However, unless that
> party has violated the conditions of the GNU GPL grant they originally
> received, there does not appear to be any enforcible threat of
> revocation that would succeed.
> 
> I hope these, along with the many court cases world-wide that have
> tested the GNU GPL and found it to be enforcible, can reassure those
> considering whether a particular copyright holder's whim can revoke the
> freedoms guaranteed in a GNU GPL-covered work. I'd say there's nothing
> to worry about from those threats.

I don't disagree with what is stated here (but I have a headache and didn't 
read it carefully), but, even without reading carefully, 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.

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204698

On 1/27/19 6:23 AM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't disagree with what is stated here (but I have a headache and didn't 
> read it carefully), but, even without reading carefully, 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.
> 
> 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.

This is correct, and happens all the time.

-Matt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204700

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204710

rhkramer@gmail.com writes:

> […] 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.

Yes. The _Copyleft and the GNU General Public License_ guide
<URL:https://copyleft.org/guide/> addresses that possibility:

     The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder
     grants rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the
     software under terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that
     grant. Since the GPL has no provision allowing the copyright holder
     to take such a prerogative, the license is granted as long as the
     copyright remains in effect. The copyright holders have the right
     to relicense the same work under different licenses […], or to stop
     distributing the GPLv2’d version (assuming GPLv2 §3(b) was never
     used), but they may not revoke the rights under GPLv2 already
     granted.

     In fact, when an entity loses their right to copy, modify and
     distribute GPL’d software, it is because of their *own actions*,
     not that of the copyright holder. The copyright holder does not
     decide when GPLv2 §4 termination occurs (if ever); rather, the
     actions of the licensee determine that.

     <URL:https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-510007.1>

So, the copyright holders can make new releases without granting GPL
freedoms. But they have no way to revoke the GPL freedoms already
granted to a person in a specific past release of the work.

-- 
 \                “Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” —Upton Sinclair |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204712

rhkramer@gmail.com writes:

> […] 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.

Yes. The _Copyleft and the GNU General Public License_ guide
<URL:https://copyleft.org/guide/> addresses that possibility:

     The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder
     grants rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the
     software under terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that
     grant. Since the GPL has no provision allowing the copyright holder
     to take such a prerogative, the license is granted as long as the
     copyright remains in effect. The copyright holders have the right
     to relicense the same work under different licenses […], or to stop
     distributing the GPLv2’d version (assuming GPLv2 §3(b) was never
     used), but they may not revoke the rights under GPLv2 already
     granted.

     In fact, when an entity loses their right to copy, modify and
     distribute GPL’d software, it is because of their *own actions*,
     not that of the copyright holder. The copyright holder does not
     decide when GPLv2 §4 termination occurs (if ever); rather, the
     actions of the licensee determine that.

     <URL:https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-510007.1>

So, the copyright holder can make new releases without granting GPL
freedoms. But they have no way to revoke the GPL freedoms already
granted to a person in a specific past release of the work.

-- 
 \                “Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” —Upton Sinclair |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204699

Note that under USA law the right to *use* (including the right to make
such transient and temporary copies as might be required for effective
use) a copy of a program of which one is a legitimate owner is automatic
and requires no license.  Thus if someone gives (or sells) a copy of a
GPL licensed program to you, you are not affected by the GPL until you
make a copy of your copy and then give or sell it to someone else (or
retain a copy after passing the one you received on).

-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204707

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 28/01/19 3:32 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> Note that under USA law the right to *use* (including the right to make
> such transient and temporary copies as might be required for effective
> use) a copy of a program of which one is a legitimate owner is automatic
> and requires no license.

IANAL, but ok. But what defines a 'legitimate owner'? No ownership
rights are generally transferred with a piece of software, right?

>  Thus if someone gives (or sells) a copy

... and I understand that if there's no consideration paid, there's no
legal contract, right?

I'm paraphrasing from recent comments by someone who claims to be a
lawyer, posting on The Register. They also claim that promissory
estoppel claims are generally hard to win.

NB I'm in New Zealand, so whatever laws apply here may well be different
anyway.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204709

On Sunday, January 27, 2019 02:41:49 PM Richard Hector wrote:
> On 28/01/19 3:32 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> > Note that under USA law the right to *use* (including the right to make
> > such transient and temporary copies as might be required for effective
> > use) a copy of a program of which one is a legitimate owner is automatic
> > and requires no license.
> 
> IANAL, but ok. But what defines a 'legitimate owner'? No ownership
> rights are generally transferred with a piece of software, right?

IANAL either (aside: when I first saw that acronym, a long time ago, I thought 
(from the context) that someone was trying to say they were not a liar -- to a 
certain extent, I sometime consider the two words synonymous ;-)

Anyway, I don't think "legitimate owner" (of the software) is quite the right 
phrase, it is more like "legitimate owner of a copy of the software" and / or 
the "legitimate owner of a license (or right) to use the software".

(And, yes, consideration is required (afaik), but it is not necessarily 
financial -- it could be (I think) agreement to uphold the terms of the 
license.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204718

On Sunday, January 27, 2019 03:45:14 PM Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> IANAL either but "vsnsdualce" is a lawyer and provided a lot of
> information on how the GPL could be revoked. Maybe the laws, e.g. USA
> laws, are more powerful than your EULAs and EULA-like stuff.
> 
> If you really would like to find out the truth instead of drinking
> kool-aid calming yourself that "nah it can't be revoked because I
> wouldn't like that" then please search for "vsnsdualce" "gpl"
> messages.

You cc'ed me (which I responded to you privately about), but now I'll expound 
to say that was not my position -- I merely pointed out that one (?) way to 
seemingly get around the do not revoke meme would be, as an owner of the 
software (not the owner of a copy of the software or owner of a license to use 
the software (unless that license allowed what I'm going to mention)) is to 
modify the software and issue the new version under different terms.

To all: please don't cc me unless there is some good special reason -- it 
makes me feel that you are somehow personally attributing to me (or arguing 
with me?) about something in the post. 

regards,
Randy Kramer
 
> My personal point of view, which may be incorrect because IANAL, is
> that the forced introduction of Code of Conducts was quite similar to
> one-sided modification of license agreement and should render it
> invalid.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ivan Ivanov
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#204724

Richard writes:
> IANAL, but ok. But what defines a 'legitimate owner'? No ownership
> rights are generally transferred with a piece of software, right?

A copy under USA copyright law is a tangible object.  When you buy a CD
or other embodiment of a work you own that object and have all the
rights of ownership.  Ownership of a copy --a tangible object-- is
entirely different from ownership of the right to make and distribute
additional copies of an object embodying material protected by
copyright.  Copyright law does not limit your rights in that object.
You own it.

You do not own the right to make and distribute copies of that object.
However, USA copyright law automatically grants you the right to make
any transient or temporary copies that might be necessary in order to
use it.  You have the right to transfer ownership of the object to
someone else, but if you do so you must, of course, destroy the
aforementioned temporary copies.

> ... and I understand that if there's no consideration paid, there's no
> legal contract, right?

"Contract"?  If someone makes a gift of an object to you expecting no
compensation, you still own it.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web