3 ms·

This may not be the FSF stance, but I can think of 3 reasons. The main one is it is easier to change the license if you want to. IANAL so I'll probably mess u

This may not be the FSF stance, but I can think of 3 reasons. The main one is it is easier to change the license if you want to. IANAL so I'll probably mess up these next two, which I believe are more theoretical than anything in regard to software. At least in the US. It is possible for a copyright holder to revoke a license. so there could be an important contribution living in the code base and then one day the author could revoke the license and they would have to remove the code, and somehow prove their replacement was not infringing. There is a concept of Joint Authorship. Where it could be possible for a contributor to claim joint copyright over the entire project, and then release it on their own under any license they want. I could be wrong, but I believe it has happened where book editors that didn't have an air tight contract, were able to claim joint copyright over a book they edited, and release their own versions with a different publisher.

mcguire 5y ago
"It is possible for a copyright holder to revoke a license. so there could be an important contribution living in the code base and then one day the author could revoke the license and they would have to remove the code, and somehow prove their replacement was not infringing." I don't believe that is true. A license is a contract; there are only two ways to revoke a contract: if the contract is illegal or if the contract provides terms to let you revoke it. If you publish software under the GPL, there is no way to revoke the license. You could stop supporting the contribution in the code base and release alternate versions under different licenses, but the versions in the code base under the GPL remain available under the original terms.
- Macha 5y ago
  The third is specific laws having specific terms that supercede the contract, e.g. discharging contractually obligated repayments in personal bankruptcy
- tzs 5y ago
  Nonexclusive licenses granted without consideration are by default revocable. Fortunately, GPLv3 section 2 explicitly states that it is irrevocable. GPLv2 omits such language, so to make it irrevocable you are going to want to find consideration. You can probably whack it a few times with your promissory estoppel stick hard enough to get some consideration to bleed out of it. That's probably good enough to get irrevocability.

mcguire 5y ago

"It is possible for a copyright holder to revoke a license. so there could be an important contribution living in the code base and then one day the author could revoke the license and they would have to remove the code, and somehow prove their replacement was not infringing." I don't believe that is true. A license is a contract; there are only two ways to revoke a contract: if the contract is illegal or if the contract provides terms to let you revoke it. If you publish software under the GPL, there is no way to revoke the license. You could stop supporting the contribution in the code base and release alternate versions under different licenses, but the versions in the code base under the GPL remain available under the original terms.

Macha 5y ago
The third is specific laws having specific terms that supercede the contract, e.g. discharging contractually obligated repayments in personal bankruptcy
tzs 5y ago
Nonexclusive licenses granted without consideration are by default revocable. Fortunately, GPLv3 section 2 explicitly states that it is irrevocable. GPLv2 omits such language, so to make it irrevocable you are going to want to find consideration. You can probably whack it a few times with your promissory estoppel stick hard enough to get some consideration to bleed out of it. That's probably good enough to get irrevocability.