4 ms·

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

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/

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/