>> 1015331
> You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is
> meaningless.
It is not meaningless, it is essential.
For you to have an attached interest, you must secure it.
And you must secure it from the property owner.
> The GPL is a commercial distribution license.
It is not. Nothing was payed to many 1000s of property owners for them
to forgo their default rights, nor did they disclaim them in the
license, nor were they paid for said non-existent disclaimers.
> People are allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to
> make a big profit by doing this.
Until the license is revoked.
All your "rights" stem from the choice of the property owner to alienate
his property as he sees fit.
Here he has chosen to alienate his property very little: he has simply
granted a license (not a transfer). He may revoke this grant at his
leasure since it is not secured by an interest.
You paid nothing to Owner. Owner gave nothing to you. He is simply
allowing you to temporarily use his property. He can end this permission
when he wishes.
You then must prove that you paid him to not use this property right of
his, and that he gave to you (in return for this payment in money,
performance, goods) a promise to forgo this right of his.
You cannot show that. You have no right to prevent him from recovering
his property. In this case the code.
He can say: nope, you cannot use it any-longer in new editions of this
software. Then the burden is on you to show the court where he sold you
some right that runs counter to his default rights in his own property.
He never did so, so you have nothing to show.
> >>1015264
> >Without an attached interest you can very well revoke the license and prevent all further distribution of your code, and further use of it in future versions.
>
> You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is
> meaningless. The GPL is a commercial distribution license. People are
> allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to make a big
> profit by doing this.