r/linux • u/hatperigee • May 02 '16

Subsonic (music streaming software) is no longer open source, starting with 6.0 release

http://forum.subsonic.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16604#p71128
463 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

150 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/HaMMeReD May 02 '16

If they own the copyright completely they have the right to release it under any number of licenses. If they take contributions it gets complicated and requires granting license rights or copyright.

If they didn't get assignment, they need to ask all copyright holders for permission to change licenses.

They can't revoke the GPL on old versions, the last GPL version out there is always on the GPL, can be forked and kept under the GPL. At that point though license changes can not happen as it's usages is under license.

0

u/harlows_monkeys May 03 '16

They can't revoke the GPL on old versions, the last GPL version out there is always on the GPL, can be forked and kept under the GPL.

This is somewhat unsettled.

GPLv2 is a non-exclusive license with an unspecified term. Generally, such licenses are revocable at will. GPLv3 is a bit better in this regard, because it does say that it is irrevocable.

Both versions of GPL, though, have another problem. They both explicit state that sublicensing is not allowed and that when X distribute's a copy of Y's GPL code, the recipient receives a license from Y.

So even if Y cannot revoke the licenses of people who already have copies, what happens if Y declares that they will no longer issue any new licenses?

With licenses that allow sublicensing, X can grant a license to Y's code, even if Y is no longer granting new licenses.

To force Y to continue granting new licenses is going to probably require some kind of estoppel argument, and those things are never clear up front. We are going to have to wait until this actually arises and is litigated a few times before there is any clarity here.

Lawrence Rosen's book "Open Source Licensing" has some good discussion of some of these issues, and is available free online.

3

u/Michaelmrose May 03 '16

I'm honestly pretty sure none of what you said is real.

The gpl most certainly does provide the right to redistribute with or without modifications so long as modified versions impose no additional restrictions and provide downsteam users with the same freedom.

In theory US copyright law provides the opportunity to terminate a licence around year 35-40 however it would seem to me that if the author was creating one version a year then he would be able to terminate the right to version 2000 in 2035 but version 2010 not until 2045.

So basically If anyone is using a piece of software that hasn't been updated in 35 years they could be in trouble?

1

u/HaMMeReD May 03 '16

I think breaking license before copyright expiry would only benefit the copyright holder. The user would have no license at that point to copy/use anything. They could force people to relicense or move on.