4 ms·

> BTW this guy can not stop derivative works once he has released it as BSD. Aside: Isn't is possible to revoke a license?

sparkie 12y ago
No, not unless the original license text contained such a revocation clause, which isn't the case for BSD licenses.
- alextgordon 12y ago
  Huh? Where does the law say this? It is my impression that the copyright owner has all rights unless he explicitly relaxes them. A license by definition cannot create more rights, it can only relax them.
  - nobotty 12y ago
    It needs a revocation clause because yes he can revoke it from new versions, but no he cannot edit the original copy some guy downloaded with the BSD clause.
  - brazzy 12y ago
    Yes, but by publishing under the BSD license he has relaxed his rights, and he cannot retroactively change that.
  - detaro 12y ago
    A license doesn't "relax" rights, it grants rights to others (and sometimes/in some jurisdictions also can limit how the copyright owner can make use of his rights) If you give someone the right to do something and don't specify how you can take it away, you can't take it away again. Without termination clauses a license is a contract thats valid indefinitely.
    - alextgordon 12y ago
      And why can't you take it away? If I give someone a permit to cross my bridge, I can revoke it at any time. Usually when something is perpetual, you have to write in it: "perpetual" for it to actually be so.
      - elithrar 12y ago
        We are not talking about permits (which are typically temporary as per whatever conditions they have). We are talking about software licenses, which often do not allow the copyright holder to revoke. These licenses are explicit about what they do/do not grant. p
      - ytjohn 12y ago
        Let's keep it with software. The bridge metaphor is more applicable to a service offering where you maintain infrastructure and adjust pricing based on the cost of maintaining it. In software, the license is what you sell. I don't buy MS Windows or Photoshop, I buy a license for it. If you sell me a 3-seat license of software v1.0 allowing me to install it on up to 3 computers, you can't come back 2 years later and change the terms to only 1 computer. Now, in 2 years, you might have v2.0 and require a new license for that. But the license you sold me for v1.0 remains in place. By releasing the software under the BSD license, he basically sold us a license (price immaterial) granting permission to redistribute and alter the code, provided that new code includes the BSD license. I understand that wasn't his intention. Another commenter pointed out that the author gave permission to another project which was being released under the BSD license. Now anyone that was "sold" the software with that license has been granted those redistribution rights.
        alextgordon 12y ago
        I did think of this, but surely a transaction between two parties is not the same as simply posting a license on a website? If I pay money in return for a license to use Photoshop, there is a reasonable expectation that I can use that indefinitely. I give then money, they give me permission. If I simply download a piece of open source software from the internet, that isn't the same thing. There's no transaction. There's no anything. If the author subsequently tells me "I hereby revoke all previous licenses", I don't see how that wouldn't have legal weight.
SwellJoe 12y ago
The entirety of the license is the text of the license. If there is no revocation clause specifying how revocation would happen, the answer is no, it can't be revoked. Assuming he holds the copyright for the entirety of the program, he could change the license for all future versions, and he also could stop distributing old versions under the old license (putting a new license on it, or simply discontinuing distribution). But, the old license has already granted thousands, or millions, of people, the right to distribute it under those terms.
bhouston 12y ago
For future modifications, yes, but you can not retroactively revoke a license. Although I am sure if you get a lawyer involved he can likely try to come p with reasons why it couldn't have legitimately been released as BSD in the first place, thus declare the first BSD licensing of the code as invalid.
lwh 12y ago
Unless there's a term in the license it never ends, so my BSD copy stays that way. Anyone could keep distributing it and derivatives.
rwmj 12y ago
The other answers to your question are not correct. In some countries, authors' "moral rights" can include the right to withdraw the software, saying "I don't want you to continue distributing the software", which is similar to retroactively revoking the license. For the situation in France, see: http://ifosslawbook.org/france/ http://ifosslawbook.org/france/ ("Moral Rights" heading)
- jordigh 12y ago
  The GPL actually has a clause agaisnt revocation in section 2: All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. How does France work against this?
  - rwmj 12y ago
    I happen to know about this "France problem" because for a while it affected the OCaml distribution (it has now been resolved by some French-specific legal wrangle). I don't know how this affects the GPL specifically, but you can be pretty sure that if the GPL doesn't contain France-specific French-language legalese to work around it, then it's likely to be revokable whatever the license says. Of course this only affects you if you're in France or have French contributors.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    France doesn't need to "work against this". If that's the law in France, it trumps the license text. Just as the law trumps any clause requiring the sacrifice of the licensee's firstborn on an altar.
    - Moyamo 12y ago
      Doesn't this make it illegal to distribute GPL software in France under clause 12? If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. Since allowing the licensor to revoke the licence would be an extra condition.
KenoFischer 12y ago
This is an interesting question. I was at a talk at this years's GsoC summit where this was discussed and indeed, the language of the BSD license does not issue an `irrevocable` license as the language of a lot of other licenses does. Nobody has every tried revoking an MIT or BSD license before, but it would be an interesting legal argument to see if the courts would allow it.

sparkie 12y ago

No, not unless the original license text contained such a revocation clause, which isn't the case for BSD licenses.

alextgordon 12y ago
Huh? Where does the law say this? It is my impression that the copyright owner has all rights unless he explicitly relaxes them. A license by definition cannot create more rights, it can only relax them.
- nobotty 12y ago
  It needs a revocation clause because yes he can revoke it from new versions, but no he cannot edit the original copy some guy downloaded with the BSD clause.
- brazzy 12y ago
  Yes, but by publishing under the BSD license he has relaxed his rights, and he cannot retroactively change that.
- detaro 12y ago
  A license doesn't "relax" rights, it grants rights to others (and sometimes/in some jurisdictions also can limit how the copyright owner can make use of his rights) If you give someone the right to do something and don't specify how you can take it away, you can't take it away again. Without termination clauses a license is a contract thats valid indefinitely.
  - alextgordon 12y ago
    And why can't you take it away? If I give someone a permit to cross my bridge, I can revoke it at any time. Usually when something is perpetual, you have to write in it: "perpetual" for it to actually be so.
    - elithrar 12y ago
      We are not talking about permits (which are typically temporary as per whatever conditions they have). We are talking about software licenses, which often do not allow the copyright holder to revoke. These licenses are explicit about what they do/do not grant. p
    - ytjohn 12y ago
      Let's keep it with software. The bridge metaphor is more applicable to a service offering where you maintain infrastructure and adjust pricing based on the cost of maintaining it. In software, the license is what you sell. I don't buy MS Windows or Photoshop, I buy a license for it. If you sell me a 3-seat license of software v1.0 allowing me to install it on up to 3 computers, you can't come back 2 years later and change the terms to only 1 computer. Now, in 2 years, you might have v2.0 and require a new license for that. But the license you sold me for v1.0 remains in place. By releasing the software under the BSD license, he basically sold us a license (price immaterial) granting permission to redistribute and alter the code, provided that new code includes the BSD license. I understand that wasn't his intention. Another commenter pointed out that the author gave permission to another project which was being released under the BSD license. Now anyone that was "sold" the software with that license has been granted those redistribution rights.
      - alextgordon 12y ago
        I did think of this, but surely a transaction between two parties is not the same as simply posting a license on a website? If I pay money in return for a license to use Photoshop, there is a reasonable expectation that I can use that indefinitely. I give then money, they give me permission. If I simply download a piece of open source software from the internet, that isn't the same thing. There's no transaction. There's no anything. If the author subsequently tells me "I hereby revoke all previous licenses", I don't see how that wouldn't have legal weight.

SwellJoe 12y ago

The entirety of the license is the text of the license. If there is no revocation clause specifying how revocation would happen, the answer is no, it can't be revoked. Assuming he holds the copyright for the entirety of the program, he could change the license for all future versions, and he also could stop distributing old versions under the old license (putting a new license on it, or simply discontinuing distribution). But, the old license has already granted thousands, or millions, of people, the right to distribute it under those terms.

bhouston 12y ago

For future modifications, yes, but you can not retroactively revoke a license. Although I am sure if you get a lawyer involved he can likely try to come p with reasons why it couldn't have legitimately been released as BSD in the first place, thus declare the first BSD licensing of the code as invalid.

lwh 12y ago

Unless there's a term in the license it never ends, so my BSD copy stays that way. Anyone could keep distributing it and derivatives.

rwmj 12y ago

The other answers to your question are not correct. In some countries, authors' "moral rights" can include the right to withdraw the software, saying "I don't want you to continue distributing the software", which is similar to retroactively revoking the license. For the situation in France, see: http://ifosslawbook.org/france/ http://ifosslawbook.org/france/ ("Moral Rights" heading)

jordigh 12y ago
The GPL actually has a clause agaisnt revocation in section 2: All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. How does France work against this?
- rwmj 12y ago
  I happen to know about this "France problem" because for a while it affected the OCaml distribution (it has now been resolved by some French-specific legal wrangle). I don't know how this affects the GPL specifically, but you can be pretty sure that if the GPL doesn't contain France-specific French-language legalese to work around it, then it's likely to be revokable whatever the license says. Of course this only affects you if you're in France or have French contributors.
- Tomte 12y ago
  France doesn't need to "work against this". If that's the law in France, it trumps the license text. Just as the law trumps any clause requiring the sacrifice of the licensee's firstborn on an altar.
  - Moyamo 12y ago
    Doesn't this make it illegal to distribute GPL software in France under clause 12? If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. Since allowing the licensor to revoke the licence would be an extra condition.

KenoFischer 12y ago

This is an interesting question. I was at a talk at this years's GsoC summit where this was discussed and indeed, the language of the BSD license does not issue an `irrevocable` license as the language of a lot of other licenses does. Nobody has every tried revoking an MIT or BSD license before, but it would be an interesting legal argument to see if the courts would allow it.