Re: [tlug] Apple owns CUPS

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

Josh Glover writes:

 > But if software is once released by the GPL, the community can
 > continue to release derived works from the GPL'd codebase, right?

As I wrote to Attila, this simply is not clear.  In the FSF
interpretation, the GPL is a *gift*, and therefore the terms are
defined by the licensor.  If I say "your computer can't seem to
connect? please use mine", does that imply that you can use it
forever?  Of course not.  It's a license until I say otherwise.  And
IIRC that's precisely what the GPL says.  "You may redistribute."  It
doesn't say "forever".  In law, copyright is the property of the
copyright holder, and AFAICT the analogy of "OK, stop copying
... now!" to "OK, give back my PC ... now!" is exact, in law.

Now, there is a legal concept called reliance.  If somebody says, you
may do this or that, and you have reason to believe that they mean it,
and you expend some cost relying on that belief, then you may have
cause for relief if the licensor tries to withdraw permission.  This
reliance AIUI becomes the consideration in an implicit contract, and
that is what allows us to have some confidence as users that the GPL
prevents us from being prosecuted in the future.  But note how the FSF
interpretation confuses things here!  By emphasizing that there is no
contract involved, that it is a gift, it gives further legal standing
to an attempt to withdraw the gift.

There are two other theories I know of.  The first is that the
copyright holder of a work derived from a GPLed work is bound by his
obligations under the GPL.  If upstream intends the GPL to be a
permanent gift, then arguably "same terms" implies that the implicit
perpetual term of the upstream license must carry over to downstream.
That would mean that derivative works have at least as long a term as
the original work.

The second is that some copyright holders like the FSF are bound by
covenants of incorporation.

However, the only theory that is available to all licensees is
reliance.

N.B. All of the above may apply only in U.S. law, I don't know how it
would work in Europe.  Of course IANAL and TINLA.