Clarification of GPL

[Ben Reser]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 10:24:55AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> That's a realistic worry, although if all those people license
> their code under GPL, they cannot revoke that license and stop
> distribution of the program. A bigger issue is if in the future
> the project wants to change the license. Then they have to ask
> everyone permission. 

The problem here is exactly that.  Assignment is a double edged
sword.  Assignment makes it easier for one individual to litigate
against people who violate the license (which means violating the
copyright).  But it also permits the assignee to change the license for future
releases in any manner which they please.  Including proprietary
licenses that perhaps the majority of contributors may not be inclined
to agree to.

This is true because the GPL does not apply to the owner of a
copyrighted work as long as they own the entire work.  If they don't own
the entire work it becomes rather complex.  They'd more than likely have
to receive permissions from all the people who do own the rights.  They
might be able to remove the parts that they didn't own.  But even this
wouldn't be easy, as parts of the code they have written may be
considered derivative works of the code they don't own.  Unfortunately,
what is and is not a derivative work is a pretty fuzzy line.

GNU projects require assignment of copyright to the FSF.  In this case
it is very unlikely (arguably impossible) that code would be relicensed
in any manner that is inconsistent with the GPL.  Though some people
might even argue this point.

However, in this particular case the assignee is not the FSF but the
primary author of the application.  There is no way to be sure of the
author's future motives as you can with the FSF.  He may be hired by a
commercial software firm who pays him a large sum of money to turn the
application closed source and work on it for them.

But even if you assume or trust the author to only have good motives you
can not assume that his successors in interest will be.  Copyrights live
on past death and as a result pass to the authors heirs.  Those heirs
could do anything they want with the software.  Including selling it.

While it is true that the license provided by the GPL can not be revoked
unless you do not comply with the terms, i.e. the released code would be
available to the world to use forever, including continuing to make new
derivatives licensed under the GPL.  It is also true that most people
using the GPL do so because the wish to disallow the commercial use of
their code without the reciprocal release of source code.  Assignment in
this case subverts this wish and expectation.

The author in this case could will the software to the FSF upon their
death.  That would certainly avoid the issue of successors (presuming
the will is properly done).  However, if they're going to will it to the
FSF why not just assign all the code to them now?  Or possibly some
other organization if they don't like the politics of the FSF.

I personally don't think assignment is necessary.  I find find the
motives of people requiring assignment to them personally to be highly
suspect.  I wouldn't contribute to a project that required that.

-- 
Ben Reser <ben at reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org

"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3