4 ms·

The GPL is not (easily) revocable. The license for any concrete version already published in OpenJDK under the GPL can only be revoked 35 years after that versi

The GPL is not (easily) revocable. The license for any concrete version already published in OpenJDK under the GPL can only be revoked 35 years after that version was published. Even then, the owner must provide public notice 2 years before revoking the license. Source: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/832/is-a-copyright-license-by-default-revocable-or-irrevocable https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/832/is-a-copyright-l...

tzs 9y ago
That's specifically talking about 17 USC 203, which is a termination right that applies to all copyright licenses in the US, even those that explicitly say they are irrevocable and were backed with consideration. That a license is eventually revocable under 17 USC 203 does not preclude it being revocable under other circumstances. The case law holds that a non-exclusive copyright license without consideration that does not say it is irrevocable is revocable at will. That's why nearly every case you can find where someone tried to revoke a non-exclusive copyright license turns into a case about whether or not there was consideration. Google "non-exclusive copyright license revocation" and you'll find a few articles discussing some of these cases. See also Rosen's book on open source licensing, available free online [1]. [1] http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
- danarmak 9y ago
  Thanks! This is an important problem I wasn't aware of. Googling shows a lot of different opinions and confusion about this; it'll take me time to get to the bottom of this. If one takes seriously the idea that all FOSS licensed under the GPLv2 and other licenses that don't explicitly say they're irrevocable (as GPLv3 does) is at risk of being un-licensed at will, the whole ecosystem is at risk.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  Can you please provide a case in which a gpl licensed item was revoked "at will". Since I am pretty sure such has never happened you could alternatively provide another case in which a piece of software was revoked? I honestly don't believe that you can make such an offer allow man years of work to be built upon your offer, derive benefits for years based on providing such an offer and say sorry changed my mind. Even if an unproven legal theory existed that would Theoretically justify this, it would end in 7 years of litigation during which the ecosystem would have collapsed. They would own at best a billion dollar legal bill and 100% of nothing at worst a billion dollar legal bill and nothing to show for it. Its hard to imagine that this is a real issue.
  - tzs 9y ago
    As far as I know, no one has seriously tried to revoke the license on software that they have released under GPL. The cases involving non-exclusive copyright licenses that do not specify a term usually just involve a couple of parties. > I honestly don't believe that you can make such an offer allow man years of work to be built upon your offer, derive benefits for years based on providing such an offer and say sorry changed my mind. That would be the argument defendants would use. In particular, they would use that to argue that "promissory estoppel" applies. As I noted, non-exclusive copyright licenses that do not specify a term are revocable at will unless there was consideration or a substitute for consideration. Promissory estoppel is one kind of substitute for consideration. If I had to bet, I would bet that a promissory estoppel argument would work to save the license, at least for people who already have copies. People using GPL v2 (or other free/open licenses that fail to say anything about being irrevocable) and who want to ensure that if someone else ends up owning the copyright they will not try to revoke the license should be able to do so by wrapping that base license with something like the following. (Don't actually use this. It's just an outline of the general approach one could take, written quickly. A real license should be drafted by a lawyer experience in software licensing) --------- 0. This license is called the "No Backsies License for <base license>". 1. Licensor grants you an irrevocable license to <name of software> under the following terms and conditions. 2. This software is dual licensed under both this license and under <base license>. 2. You may copy, distribute, make derivative works of, distribute derivate works of, run, display, and perform the software according to the same terms and conditions specified in <base license> for those activities. 3. You may sublicense <name of software> to others under the terms of this license. Your sublicensees receive all rights to the software that you received from this license or from <base license>, including the right to sublicense it. When you distribute <name of software> or a derivative work of <name of software> to someone else, you automatically sublicense it to them under the terms of this license. 4. Licensor will provide a <base license> license to anyone who receives the software from you, directly or indirectly, under conditions that according to <base license> result in them receiving such a license. This license is provided automatically, with no need for the prospective licensee to notify or contact licensor or for licensor to take any action.

tzs 9y ago

That's specifically talking about 17 USC 203, which is a termination right that applies to all copyright licenses in the US, even those that explicitly say they are irrevocable and were backed with consideration. That a license is eventually revocable under 17 USC 203 does not preclude it being revocable under other circumstances. The case law holds that a non-exclusive copyright license without consideration that does not say it is irrevocable is revocable at will. That's why nearly every case you can find where someone tried to revoke a non-exclusive copyright license turns into a case about whether or not there was consideration. Google "non-exclusive copyright license revocation" and you'll find a few articles discussing some of these cases. See also Rosen's book on open source licensing, available free online [1]. [1] http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm

danarmak 9y ago
Thanks! This is an important problem I wasn't aware of. Googling shows a lot of different opinions and confusion about this; it'll take me time to get to the bottom of this. If one takes seriously the idea that all FOSS licensed under the GPLv2 and other licenses that don't explicitly say they're irrevocable (as GPLv3 does) is at risk of being un-licensed at will, the whole ecosystem is at risk.
michaelmrose 9y ago
Can you please provide a case in which a gpl licensed item was revoked "at will". Since I am pretty sure such has never happened you could alternatively provide another case in which a piece of software was revoked? I honestly don't believe that you can make such an offer allow man years of work to be built upon your offer, derive benefits for years based on providing such an offer and say sorry changed my mind. Even if an unproven legal theory existed that would Theoretically justify this, it would end in 7 years of litigation during which the ecosystem would have collapsed. They would own at best a billion dollar legal bill and 100% of nothing at worst a billion dollar legal bill and nothing to show for it. Its hard to imagine that this is a real issue.
- tzs 9y ago
  As far as I know, no one has seriously tried to revoke the license on software that they have released under GPL. The cases involving non-exclusive copyright licenses that do not specify a term usually just involve a couple of parties. > I honestly don't believe that you can make such an offer allow man years of work to be built upon your offer, derive benefits for years based on providing such an offer and say sorry changed my mind. That would be the argument defendants would use. In particular, they would use that to argue that "promissory estoppel" applies. As I noted, non-exclusive copyright licenses that do not specify a term are revocable at will unless there was consideration or a substitute for consideration. Promissory estoppel is one kind of substitute for consideration. If I had to bet, I would bet that a promissory estoppel argument would work to save the license, at least for people who already have copies. People using GPL v2 (or other free/open licenses that fail to say anything about being irrevocable) and who want to ensure that if someone else ends up owning the copyright they will not try to revoke the license should be able to do so by wrapping that base license with something like the following. (Don't actually use this. It's just an outline of the general approach one could take, written quickly. A real license should be drafted by a lawyer experience in software licensing) --------- 0. This license is called the "No Backsies License for <base license>". 1. Licensor grants you an irrevocable license to <name of software> under the following terms and conditions. 2. This software is dual licensed under both this license and under <base license>. 2. You may copy, distribute, make derivative works of, distribute derivate works of, run, display, and perform the software according to the same terms and conditions specified in <base license> for those activities. 3. You may sublicense <name of software> to others under the terms of this license. Your sublicensees receive all rights to the software that you received from this license or from <base license>, including the right to sublicense it. When you distribute <name of software> or a derivative work of <name of software> to someone else, you automatically sublicense it to them under the terms of this license. 4. Licensor will provide a <base license> license to anyone who receives the software from you, directly or indirectly, under conditions that according to <base license> result in them receiving such a license. This license is provided automatically, with no need for the prospective licensee to notify or contact licensor or for licensor to take any action.