4 ms·

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: Th

by 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
  He is the owner of his contributions, which is why I said "for his contributions" immediately after the part you quote.
  - nix23 4y ago
    I would say that (probably?) even his contributions have so much work (patches) from others in it, that he's not the solely owner of the code anymore (same with git), i would say it's nearly impossible to change the license once it's in the kernel. That's a good thing btw ;)
    - Macha 4y ago
      This is borne out in many music licensing disputes over the years where many owners just means any of them can stop distribution.
    - djur 4y ago
      It certainly feels like that should be practically the case, and if it ever goes to court I hope that's how it turns out! Copyright law wasn't written with software in mind and, strange as it seems, there's still a ton of unresolved questions about how exactly it works.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Macha 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19161833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19161833 Past discussion on claims the GPLv2 is revocable because it doesn't explicitly say irrevocable
- trynewideas 4y ago
  FWIW: https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x... which was added when a bunch of GPLv2 contributors mused about revoking their contributions to Linux rather than comply with the project's new code of conduct: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil... > The contributor is, of course, free to make no future grants, but they can’t withdraw past grants. The Guide's new section also explains how promissory estoppel is an additional legal safeguard ensuring the withdrawal of permission will not disrupt the use of those who rely on the software.

by djur 4y ago

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
He is the owner of his contributions, which is why I said "for his contributions" immediately after the part you quote.
- nix23 4y ago
  I would say that (probably?) even his contributions have so much work (patches) from others in it, that he's not the solely owner of the code anymore (same with git), i would say it's nearly impossible to change the license once it's in the kernel. That's a good thing btw ;)
  - Macha 4y ago
    This is borne out in many music licensing disputes over the years where many owners just means any of them can stop distribution.
  - djur 4y ago
    It certainly feels like that should be practically the case, and if it ever goes to court I hope that's how it turns out! Copyright law wasn't written with software in mind and, strange as it seems, there's still a ton of unresolved questions about how exactly it works.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Macha 4y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19161833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19161833 Past discussion on claims the GPLv2 is revocable because it doesn't explicitly say irrevocable

trynewideas 4y ago
FWIW: https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x... which was added when a bunch of GPLv2 contributors mused about revoking their contributions to Linux rather than comply with the project's new code of conduct: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil... > The contributor is, of course, free to make no future grants, but they can’t withdraw past grants. The Guide's new section also explains how promissory estoppel is an additional legal safeguard ensuring the withdrawal of permission will not disrupt the use of those who rely on the software.