>>2692>This sparked a legal debate about whether revoking your code is allowed. Note that copyright and license are two separate things. Conflating them is what usually prevents people from penetrating the topic.
Your missing a topic: contract law.
One needs to know all three to come to a conclusion.
Most programmers are familiar with none of them.
A non-exclusive copyright license cannot be held to be a transfer of rights, so this knocks out one counter-argument.
A license is not by-itself a license-contract. The license is the thing you are trying to "gain". This is another thing programmers are confused about: some think they are "giving" "code" when they are granting a license to use that code instead.
A contract, which promises a license as payment, can be functionally irrevocable outside of the terms of the contract when it comes to consumer licensing contracts.
Where this intersects with the "GPL Debate":
When someone puts their work "out there" under the "GPL" they are:
Granting a non-exclusive license.
What they are not doing is:
creating a contract with a third party.
Thus, like any such license to use property (real, personal, etc etc), where there is no contract, and which cannot be construed as a transfer: the license can be terminated at any time by the grantor.