4 ms·

If what you say holds than most software licensing will be turned on it's head. The Apache licence is irrevocable but BSD, MIT, ---GPL and variants---, Eclipse

If what you say holds than most software licensing will be turned on it's head. The Apache licence is irrevocable but BSD, MIT, ---GPL and variants---, Eclipse and others say no such thing. Does that mean they are all revocable? Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? Edit: correction the GPL and family are irrevocable. But that still leaves a lot of OSI and FSF approved licenses with no such language.

Semaphor 4y ago
While I agree with what you saying regarding "irrevocable" > Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? No, because what’s revoked is to use something under that license, but only the copyright holder of that something could revoke those rights, not whoever owns the copyright of the license.
- thayne 4y ago
  But the GPLv2 is itself protected by copyright right? Could they revoke the license to that to force anything using GPLv2 to switch to a different license?
vintermann 4y ago
Right. The "gotcha" that this forum lawyer thinks he's found (and thinks Hasbro's lawyers will be going for) sounds very suspect to me.
djur 4y ago
The FSF can't revoke the GPLv2, but Linus Torvalds could (for his contributions to Linux). The GPLv3 has explicit language granting irrevocable rights. ETA: The position of the FSF/SFC is that the GPLv2 is also irrevocable: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil...
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Specifically, it seems they say it’s because of > 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 Which, at least to me as a layperson, does indeed sound like it’s describing "irrevocable" with more words.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    To me this sounds like it would have the same problem as the OGL. Even if current recepients can still use it, new recepients are blocked. And it is unclear if a current recepient can create new derivatives or nor. If Alice grants Bob lib v1.0 under GPL v2. Bob creates Soft1 v1.0 under GPL v2 using lib v1.0. Alice then revokes the licence on lib v1.0. Bob can still distribute Soft1 v1.0 but can Bob create Soft 1 v2.0 or Soft2 using lib v1.0? Or is he considered a new recepient of lib with each derivative he creates? Can Charlie still get lib v1.0 under GPL v2 from Bob? If the last answer is yes then there is no issue with the current situation either. It would mean you can still get the SDR from anyone who already has the SDR under OGL 1.0 even if directly from WOTC you can only get it under the new license.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  So what would happen if Linus revokes the licence for his contributions? (GPL v2 does not have the word irrevocable. Are we stuck until all his contribs are rewritten. Aren't all contribs to Linux so intertwined as to be derivatives of each other. Which Git commit is a derivative and which isn't?
- nix23 4y ago
  >but Linus Torvalds could No he cant, he's NOT the owner of 99.9% of the linux kernel code, he is "just" the owner of the trademark "linux" and some code. The Linux-Kernel-Code could just change license if every single contributor (or company) gives the "thump-up", otherwise that code would need to be rewritten.
  - djur 4y ago

Semaphor 4y ago

While I agree with what you saying regarding "irrevocable" > Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? No, because what’s revoked is to use something under that license, but only the copyright holder of that something could revoke those rights, not whoever owns the copyright of the license.

thayne 4y ago
But the GPLv2 is itself protected by copyright right? Could they revoke the license to that to force anything using GPLv2 to switch to a different license?

vintermann 4y ago

Right. The "gotcha" that this forum lawyer thinks he's found (and thinks Hasbro's lawyers will be going for) sounds very suspect to me.

djur 4y ago

The FSF can't revoke the GPLv2, but Linus Torvalds could (for his contributions to Linux). The GPLv3 has explicit language granting irrevocable rights. ETA: The position of the FSF/SFC is that the GPLv2 is also irrevocable: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil...

Semaphor 4y ago
Specifically, it seems they say it’s because of > 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 Which, at least to me as a layperson, does indeed sound like it’s describing "irrevocable" with more words.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  To me this sounds like it would have the same problem as the OGL. Even if current recepients can still use it, new recepients are blocked. And it is unclear if a current recepient can create new derivatives or nor. If Alice grants Bob lib v1.0 under GPL v2. Bob creates Soft1 v1.0 under GPL v2 using lib v1.0. Alice then revokes the licence on lib v1.0. Bob can still distribute Soft1 v1.0 but can Bob create Soft 1 v2.0 or Soft2 using lib v1.0? Or is he considered a new recepient of lib with each derivative he creates? Can Charlie still get lib v1.0 under GPL v2 from Bob? If the last answer is yes then there is no issue with the current situation either. It would mean you can still get the SDR from anyone who already has the SDR under OGL 1.0 even if directly from WOTC you can only get it under the new license.
alexvoda 4y ago
So what would happen if Linus revokes the licence for his contributions? (GPL v2 does not have the word irrevocable. Are we stuck until all his contribs are rewritten. Aren't all contribs to Linux so intertwined as to be derivatives of each other. Which Git commit is a derivative and which isn't?
nix23 4y ago
>but Linus Torvalds could No he cant, he's NOT the owner of 99.9% of the linux kernel code, he is "just" the owner of the trademark "linux" and some code. The Linux-Kernel-Code could just change license if every single contributor (or company) gives the "thump-up", otherwise that code would need to be rewritten.
- djur 4y ago