3 ms·

Interesting, so this seems analogous to trying to revoke or rescind a GPL license in the software world? This is something that has been tried in the past, IIR

by Nursie 4y ago

Interesting, so this seems analogous to trying to revoke or rescind a GPL license in the software world? This is something that has been tried in the past, IIRC, when a project with a single contributor has attracted a commercial buyer that wants to take the product closed-source. In the case I so vaguely remember (video software of some sort?), they tried to say that not only would future releases be closed, but that all previous GPL versions were now revoked, and continued use was copyright violation. From what I can remember, the community response was basically "LOL no".

tsimionescu 4y ago
The GPL explicitly says that the rights it grants are irrevocable - unlike this OGL discussed in the article. So no, they are not analogous at all.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vintermann 4y ago
  Older GPL versions and most other OSS licenses, don't use the magic word "irrevocable". In legal matters, no one should be sure shit like that matters, unless they're paid to be sure of it.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Sure - IANAL, IANYL, legal matters are complex etc. But there is a reason why the GPL authors explicitly added the "irrevocable" clause, and it is that it strengthens the chances the copyright holder can't make retroactive changes. Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary.
    - vintermann 4y ago
      > Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary. Doesn't mean much to me unless I know who's paying them to believe / worry about that.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Sure - and I'm not claiming they're automatically right. Here is the precise quote I read, just for completeness [0]: > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, said that Mattel might be able to argue that the GPL is invalid because users don't pay for the free software. > "Nonexclusive licenses given for free are generally revocable, even if they purport to be irrevocable," Volokh said. "Even if the GPL license in cphack is treated as signed and is covered by 205(e), it might still be revocable by Mattel as the new owners of the cphack copyright." > "It is unfortunately not quite as solid a case for the good guys as the GNU license theory would have at first led us to believe," he said. The article itself was an interesting case, where Mattel acquired the rights to a program they wanted to stop the distribution of (cphack), which apparently had been released under the GPL, and successfully sued to stop anyone from distributing it anymore. However, whether those that created it in the first place had had the right to distribute it was in doubt, so it's probably not a good test of the GPL itself. [0] https://www.wired.com/2000/03/mattel-ruling-confuses-hackers/ https://www.wired.com/2000/03/mattel-ruling-confuses-hackers...
        Macha 4y ago
        Here's some lawyers arguing the opposite, that a free software license is a binding contract, and in particular for the US one, that there is the consideration that the Mattel case argued wasn't there: https://lwn.net/Articles/747563/ https://lwn.net/Articles/747563/

by Nursie 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

The GPL explicitly says that the rights it grants are irrevocable - unlike this OGL discussed in the article. So no, they are not analogous at all.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vintermann 4y ago
Older GPL versions and most other OSS licenses, don't use the magic word "irrevocable". In legal matters, no one should be sure shit like that matters, unless they're paid to be sure of it.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Sure - IANAL, IANYL, legal matters are complex etc. But there is a reason why the GPL authors explicitly added the "irrevocable" clause, and it is that it strengthens the chances the copyright holder can't make retroactive changes. Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    > Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary. Doesn't mean much to me unless I know who's paying them to believe / worry about that.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Sure - and I'm not claiming they're automatically right. Here is the precise quote I read, just for completeness [0]: > Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, said that Mattel might be able to argue that the GPL is invalid because users don't pay for the free software. > "Nonexclusive licenses given for free are generally revocable, even if they purport to be irrevocable," Volokh said. "Even if the GPL license in cphack is treated as signed and is covered by 205(e), it might still be revocable by Mattel as the new owners of the cphack copyright." > "It is unfortunately not quite as solid a case for the good guys as the GNU license theory would have at first led us to believe," he said. The article itself was an interesting case, where Mattel acquired the rights to a program they wanted to stop the distribution of (cphack), which apparently had been released under the GPL, and successfully sued to stop anyone from distributing it anymore. However, whether those that created it in the first place had had the right to distribute it was in doubt, so it's probably not a good test of the GPL itself. [0] https://www.wired.com/2000/03/mattel-ruling-confuses-hackers/ https://www.wired.com/2000/03/mattel-ruling-confuses-hackers...
      - Macha 4y ago
        Here's some lawyers arguing the opposite, that a free software license is a binding contract, and in particular for the US one, that there is the consideration that the Mattel case argued wasn't there: https://lwn.net/Articles/747563/ https://lwn.net/Articles/747563/