However, he does have to comply with the legal requirements of the license he uses. Personally, I don't use GPL/LGPL licenses, but if I did, I'd be careful to comply with the provisions of the license.
No, the author doesn't. Not really. The license governs the use of people who don't hold the copyright. That's why the author of a project can just turn around and release under a new license.
Yes, he can release new software under a new license, but any past software he released under a certain license, he has to follow those terms.
If you come to an agreement with another party (like you agree to license a movie, or book to them), you can't just unilaterally cancel that agreement. That's not how contract law works.
He cannot prevent people who obtained a version of the software under a license from doing what they want with it under the terms of that license.
Exactly. If he's the sole contributor or if you've submitted patches and signed a CLA that gives the right to the author to change the license on your contributions they can do whatever the hell they want license-wise.
And that includes getting the source code for a binary released under the GPL. That's exactly what was at issue.
The requirement to release source code is placed on those making use of the license, not on the original holder.
> For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
The original licensor receives no freedoms, as the work is theirs to begin with. It doesn't apply to them. "You" refers solely to those accepting the license.
If the original licensor hasn't release the source code with the binary at the time, they are under no obligation to do so. Using the particular license doesn't make sense, but they still aren't obligated.
There is no legal issue here, only a moral one. And as the community didn't give the developer room to breathe, that has evaporated.
Author releases software version A under GPL, source code and a binary.
Anyone can do anything they want with A under the terms of the GPL.
Author releases software version B. People cannot force him to release source code just because A was released under GPL.
Even if he says B falls under GPL but hasn't released the source code (yet), people at most can say he did not comply with the terms of the GPL and refuse to treat/use it as such , which means they cannot use or redistribute it since that is not allowed under normal copyright rules. It cannot be used to force the author to release Bs source code.
I'm saying, if he releases version A under the GPL, he has to comply with the terms of the GPL for that release.
In any case, I'm no fan of the GPL, so it's no sweat off my back. But I don't understand someone releasing a software version under a certain license and then getting upset because someone asks him/her to abide by the terms of that license.
What kind of obligation do you think GPL/MIT/BSD/Apache could possibly place on the author?
Would any HN lawyers like to chip in? From my understanding of contracts, that interpretation seems contrary to basic legal principles.
The obligation GPL would place on the developer would be to release the source code if the program is released under the GPL. Based on my reading of the blog post, that's exactly what one user was complaining about.
That's every license. You might be thinking of a contract, which is a binding agreement between two parties.
Think of a license as a grant of certain rights to the licensee. There's no binding agreement upon the licenser.
(Not an HN lawyer.)
Nope. I'm thinking of a license, which is a contract (go look it up if you don't believe me). And contracts can be a binding agreement between two or more parties.
I've looked it up, I can't find anything. Apparently in germany GPL is a contract, as in germany contracts don't require consideration. But in the US, GPL is a license, not a contract.
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
Here's another from UChicago Law that takes it for granted that the legal reader understands that licenses are legal contracts, since it's full of quotes like "all licenses are vulnerable to the usual attacks that can be leveled against all types of contracts".
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...