• deaddigger@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Well yes and no you can release them going forward under a new licence. If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement. Thats absolutly possible to do.

    Revoking licenses is alot harder though and changing the lizens from a foss on to another is often confusing and business inapropiate. However it is legal.

    Edit: A license is for not vopyright owners not the copyright holder. The copyright holder can basically do whatever they want.

    • 9bananas@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      yes and no:

      the copyright owner can do whatever they want, but they can’t really revoke a GPL license. that’s not really a thing.

      and the part about

      If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement.

      seems to me like you are implying that “use under the old license” means “run the program on my own machine”, but that’s not true, since GPL explicitly allows redistribution and modification.

      under a GPL license, you effectively give up control over your software voluntarily:

      The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software.

      (highlighted the relevant portion for your convenience)

      this makes revoking the license effectively impossible.

      you could continue development under a different license, but that gets legally tricky very quickly.

      for example: all the code previously under GPL, stays under GPL. so if someone where to modify those parts of the code and redistribute it as a patch, you couldn’t legally do anything about that.

      which seems to be what the OOP claims the change to a CC-BY-NC-ND forbids, apparently misunderstanding, that this new license only applies to code added to the repo since the license change, not the code from before the license change.