Meant to add this humorous example, where even Emacs once violated the GPL.
lwn.net
The true cuck license
Connor Sanchez
Jordan Hill
...
Leo Sullivan
That just backs up my statement. The king has to create a new law to stop the old law from applying to him. Thus, the law as it stands applies to him. Also a King could retroactively create laws, that's not something a copyright holder could do with a common license like GPL. The copyright holder cannot withdraw previously granted rights to preexisting software.
Josiah Hall
I don't think you know what a license is. A license gives someone permission to use something that isn't theirs. If it's yours you don't need a license since of fucking course you allow yourself to use it.
Nathaniel Howard
They can hand out their GPL 3 software as an executable only if they want. GPL can do fuck all about it.
Jackson Martinez
Untrue. You can simultaneously be the creator (as in sole copyright holder) and user of your project. Just because you could have licensed it differently, doesn't mean that you're not in violation of your own license.
I'm not sure how this relates to previously granted. Also that is wrong, you must supply the source code. Finally, GPL isn't an organization.
Dylan Clark
Obviously if he gives you a license he cant take it away
Absolutely wrong. Copyright holder GRANTS YOU THE LICENSE. He can give away his programs without the source all he wants.
Jace Cook
That is what I told the above user.
What on earth led you to believe that?
Caleb Sanders
Wait, are you talking about FUTURE releases? Yes, then sure the copyright holder can do whatever he wants.
For older releases, source must distributed. That should be obvious.
Jonathan Turner
The GPL won't stop the copyright holder from doing that, but that just makes the copyright holder an outright liar. It takes a social justice warrior to pretend that you want users to have the GPL freedoms while simultaneously witholding the source code.