On default rules, and license given.

[clarityabovecompulsion]

> by jd ( 1658 ) <`imipak' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Saturday September 29, 
> 2018 @02:38PM (#57395698) Homepage Journal
> The author has no right granted by the GPL to revoke the freedoms of 
> others. Indeed, the GPL is explicit. Nobody, not even the author, can 
> remove the freedom of another.



You're completely wrong. The rule is not "If the GPL doesn't grant the 
copyright holder this, he may not do it".
The rule is "The licensee only has the privileges bestowed upon him that 
the owner of the property has granted"

Do you understand that? No. Thought not.

Version 2 of the GPL bares no "irrevocability by grantor" clause, 
specifies no duration, and the "You" it speaks of (cited by the 
SFConservancy.org) is explicitly declared to be the licensee in section 
0 (not the copyright holder, as the SFConservancy tries to argue).

Here's some lay-mans reading for you:
Licenses and revocability, in a paragraph or less.

As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
"Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified 
durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This 
means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or 
without cause." +

Version 2 of the GPL specifies no duration, nor does it declare that it 
is non-revocable by the grantor.

(Also note: A perpetual license may violate the rule against 
perpetuities in various jurisdictions where it is applied not only to 
real property but additionally to personal property (and the like), 
which is why the GPL-3's term of duration is set as the duration of 
copyright on the program (and not "forever"))

+[https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2013/02/the-terms-revocable-and-irrevocable-in-license-agreements-tips-and-pitfalls]