3 ms·
Maybe I'm missing something? But my assumption was that if I "acquired" (downloaded…) software licensed under e.g GPLv3, me as the user at least have the theore
by filleokus 2y ago
Maybe I'm missing something? But my assumption was that if I "acquired" (downloaded…) software licensed under e.g GPLv3, me as the user at least have the theoretical possibility to pursue the rights granted to me by the copyright holder in the license.
Of course the copyright holder can license new distributions under a different license (or different licenses at the same time). But are you saying that a copyright holder post hoc can revoke the license?
Wouldn't that be kinda weird? Suppose I buy some proprietary software (without any dependencies) because it's GPLv3, and then when I wanna exercise my rights, the sole copyright holder just goes "nah, when I think about it, this is actually not GPLv3".
(If you are correct, I guess that situation then might just be a civil case unrelated to the actual license where I essentially didn't get what I paid for)
- soraminazuki 2y agoNo one claimed or even hinted that authors can retroactively revoke the license. But sole authors aren't bound by the terms of the GPL when they themselves distribute the software because they already have that right as an author without a license, as opposed to others who are granted that right by the license.
- filleokus 2y agoHmm. I interpreted "[not publishing source code] goes also against the GPLv3 license that you're using" as meaning that the author is "bound" by the license to provide the source code. Of course, the terms in GPLv3 that puts limits on the licensee / user (like that derivate works must be GPLv3) are not relevant. But section 6 in the license stating that the source code must be distributed still holds true. Either OP distributes the source code to people who have the binaries, or the work is not licensed under GPLv3?