Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Mar 2021 12:15:47 +0000 | From | mikeeusa2@firemail ... | Subject | Yes the GPL is revocable. |
| |
> However, nonexclusive licenses are revocable (meaning the copyright > owner can revoke the license at any time) in the absence of > consideration. > https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/creating-written-contract-transfer-or-license-rights-under-copyright
> [...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases > code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will. > --David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
> p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the > plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee > were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the > license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending > the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest > is revocable." > --Lawrence Rosen > https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/013148787
> ("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent > consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the > license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a > nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. > Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, > 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d > 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).
> https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1592&context=faculty_scholarship > For the same reason, a licensee's commitment to use offered software in > a particular way cannot constitute consideration. Because the licensee > has no right prior to the license to use the software in any way, a > grant of only limited uses of it is merely a gift. The fact that the > giver could have been even more generous by granting use of the > software with no restrictions does not alter this conclusion. It is > still the case that the licensee has not given up anything. Only if the > licensee gives up some right, says contract law, will there be valid > consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally if you dislike that method and prefer a different method explicitly stated by Congress: By statutory law, an author can recover any copyrights signed away after (+-)30 years (US Copyright act).
The design of a program etc is a copyrightable aspect. RMS fixed this in form 30 years ago.
> https://www.copyright.gov/docs/203.html > Termination of Transfers and Licenses Under 17 U.S.C. §203 > > Section 203 of the Copyright Act permits authors (or, if the authors > are not alive, their surviving spouses, children or grandchildren, or > executors, administrators, personal representatives or trustees) to > terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made > on or after January 1, 1978 when certain conditions have been met. > Notices of termination may be served no earlier than 25 years after the > execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of > publication, no earlier than 30 years after the execution of the grant > or 25 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first). > However, termination of a grant cannot be effective until 35 years > after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of > publication, no earlier than 40 years after the execution of the grant > or 35 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first).
| |