Apologize for the follow up: Not being able to rescind the license is like saying someone who was lent a lawnmower gets to keep it indefinitely with no contest because the person who lent it can't rescind the grant to the lawnmower.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:39 PM R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This was cross posted so many places I have to preface: I got here > from the Gentoo list. If this only makes it to the crossposter forward > or follow up on the information as you see fit. > > The post is crass but still has technical merit. More importantly he > seems to be right, the idea that the grantees can't rescind their > grant is pretty strange. I'm allowed to change my mind, and you have > no claim to my labor if you didn't pay for it, nor can you make me > work for free. > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:16 PM <vsnsdua...@memeware.net> wrote: > > > > > (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, > > > because of (1))... > > > > I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*. > > > > A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will. > > > > This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD > > license(s). > > The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests > > are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis > > (paying) customers > > may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current > > versions they have > > in their posession, paid for by good consideration. > > > > <offtopic> > There is one thing you get for free (that you probably had anyway): > > I was seeing whether or not the disclaimer of liability in most FOSS > licenses was valid. They may not be, *especially* in those United > States which require a guarantee of merchantability or suitability for > a particular purpose. > > Read: You made it, you claim it does something, and if someone uses it > and it *doesn't* do that thing explosively it's still your fault even > if it was free. The amount of damages are definitely tempered by the > fact it was free. Depending on the license, state, and judge, you > could have given consideration even though you did not pay money. > </offtopic> > > > Everyone else has NOTHING. > > Do you understand that? > > > > I think it is important to clarify that it can be requested you stop > distributing the work or stop using it for some commercial purpose, > but there is no way you could e.g. be forced to delete copies of it > you already have. > > Also: Consideration can be nonmonetary, can you speak to this? > > Cheers, > R0b0t1 > > > [... snip anger ...] > > > > On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote: > > > (1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists. > > > > > > (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, > > > because of (1))... > > > > > > (3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making > > > these mistakes. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- > > > Raul > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM <visionsofal...@redchan.it> wrote: > > >> > > >> Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 > > >> hours > > >> after it was published: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes they can, greg. > > >> > > >> The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks > > >> consideration between the licensee and the grantor. > > >> > > >> (IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen > > >> to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, > > >> in > > >> fact, gain no bargained-for benefit) > > >> > > >> As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules > > >> regarding the alienation of property apply. > > >> > > >> Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. > > >> > > >> The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your > > >> as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and > > >> "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming > > >> your right to rescind the license. > > >> > > >> Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL > > >> version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any > > >> later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly > > >> savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one > > >> of > > >> them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to > > >> say > > >> that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt > > >> at the least)). > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause > > >> 4 > > >> of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause. > > >> > > >> However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a > > >> reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking > > >> specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses > > >> their > > >> permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that > > >> case > > >> the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission > > >> under the terms. > > >> > > >> Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as > > >> the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's > > >> public > > >> service announcement chooses to ignore. > > >> > > >> Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public > > >> and > > >> the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not > > >> impinge > > >> the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner > > >> vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, > > >> extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of > > >> property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a > > >> permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The > > >> impinged > > >> property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be > > >> taken > > >> back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. > > >> Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, > > >> even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it > > >> comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower > > >> (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of > > >> contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, > > >> and > > >> instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a > > >> Copyright License. > > >> > > >> The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: > > >> 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - > > >> opensource is great") > > >> 2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not > > >> Contract) > > >> 3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2 > > >> 4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions. > > >> (Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a > > >> district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much > > >> more consistent in it's rulings?) > > >> 5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract > > >> formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc. > > >> > > >> Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce > > >> Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck > > >> of > > >> happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those > > >> who > > >> support women. > > >> > > >> (This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy > > >> menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female > > >> children > > >> as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - - > > >> verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban > > >> world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their > > >> will.... who are not idolators of Women) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your > > >> code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is... > > >> > > >> They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. > > >> They > > >> CANNOT hold YOU. > > >> > > >> You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from > > >> any > > >> future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are > > >> done harm. > > >> > > >> Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into > > >> thinking > > >> otherwise. > > >> > > >> And, yes, I am a lawyer. > > >> And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside > > >> counsel to analyze the fact pattern. (And even then all they could > > >> come > > >> up with was statements using weasel words "may" etc: not even wanting > > >> to > > >> commit to their clearly-disingenuous publication) > > >> > > >> > > >> (Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here > > >> is > > >> one > > >> http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf > > >> ) > > >> > > >> On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofal...@redchan.it > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. > > >> > > > >> > No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. > > >> > > > >> > greg k-h > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > > >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofal...@redchan.it > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. > > >> > Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100: > > >> >>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. > > >> > > > >> > I was explicitly cc'ed on this thread by visionsofalice. I've read the > > >> > whole thread, and the only useful thing I can contribute here is to > > >> > agree > > >> > with Greg and additionally provide some backup research on the point: > > >> > https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ > > >> > > > >> > Software Freedom Conservancy engaged our legal counsel to write a new > > >> > section for the Copyleft Guide that further explains the irrevocability > > >> > of > > >> > GPLv2. We published this when others raised these specious claims back > > >> > in > > >> > September. Direct link to new section: > > >> > https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > HTH, > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
