Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Joseph P. Riolo <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Karsten M. Self <kmself[_at_]ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > - Previously released versions of the work would still exist under
> > GPL. The license, once granted to a work, cannot be revoked. The
> > original author(s) can release the same work under multiple terms
> > (this occurs, Alladin Ghostscript is an example), but they cannot
> > "recall" versions released under GPL.
>
> Are you absolutely sure that the license cannot be revoked? I think
> that it is possible, at least my common sense tells me so. It
> strikes very odd to me that license has the divine eternity - once
> it is written, it cannot be broken.

My understanding is that a license can be revoked at any time unless it expressly irrevocable ("I grant an irrevocable license to Karsten to ...."), is coupled with an interest in the copyright or is given in such manner as to induce reasonable and actual reliance to the licensee's detriment (like selling it, or using the code in such manner that it would be costly to change over).

I'm not sure from where this is coming, except the deep recesses of my much-confused mind, but I believe that a free license freely given without actual reliance by a particular user might be revocable unless it states that it is irrevocable. At least I'd want to research the question if it mattered.

As to first sale, that doesn't help you very much with software. First sale doesn't help except with assertions of infringement under the distribution right, particularly not the copying or derivation rights. Since you really can't make much use of software unless you can copy it (load it into RAM for execution, under MAI) or make derivative works therefrom (in particular with most GPL code), this may not be helpful.

Andrew C. Greenberg
<werdna[_at_]gate.net> Received on Mon Oct 26 1998 - 15:38:22 GMT