Comment GPL is invalid ... Did you noticed this? (Score 1) 276
If things are as Volokh says, the thing can be really nasty
"Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, said that Mattel might be able to argue that the GPL is invalid because users don't pay for the free software."
I don't think things can be that extreme but are not also that easy
To own something you need a proof of the transaction that had put the thing in your possession (even if it's a gift), otherwise how can you show the original owner allowed you to enter in possession of the thing, am I right? The physical proof of that transaction is what is demanded by several companies when they ask for us to "press this button if agree" or when they say "if you do this then you agree". They want physical evidence the user/buyer/whatever is "signing" with their actions/hands/feet(?) the contract that enforces the conditions of use.
Is this lack of "contract" from the downloader of GPL software that Volokh is thinking about? Or is really money needed to seal the conditions of a valuable license?
"Nonexclusive licenses given for free are generally revocable, even if they purport to be irrevocable," Volokh said. "Even if the GPL license in cphack is treated as signed and is covered by 205(e), it might still be revocable by Mattel as the new owners of the cphack copyright."
As we see here Volock mentions that a contract may even exist between cphack and GPL(EFF)
If this is so, what will happen to the previous downloaders of the software? If for instance I downloaded the GPL version on the 20th and GPL is revoked on the 21st, do I still have a GPL covered product or not?
