Re: [tlug] Apple owns CUPS

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Attila Kinali writes:

 > No. It is not. If you legally aquired a copy of a program
 > under GPLv2, then your right of use/distribute cannot be
 > withdrawn unless you violate the license.

I'm sorry, but that's a fantasy; at least in U.S. law there is no
legal basis for that statement.  In particular, both Larrys (Lessig,
when he was in Tokyo a couple of years ago, and Rosen, in his book)
have said that there is a theoretical possibility for a copyright
holder to withdraw the GPL.

 > There is a difference between copyright and ownership.

That's right.  You own the media, and under copyright law unless you
signed a contract limiting the term, your right to use and transfer
*that copy* is perpetual (ie, until it breaks).  However, the license
to copy lasts only as long as the copyright holder grants, and the
GPLv2 says nothing about it.  This is one of the main reasons why the
GPLv2 is considered a pretty mediocre piece of legal writing by many
competent lawyers, as I understand it.  That's why the GPLv3 *does*
say something about it.

This is especially problematic because the GPLv2 goes out of its way
to insist that the GPL is not a contract, and because no consideration
changes hands.

Now, it is likely that the copyright holder would lose in court, but
it would be expensive and messy.