Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
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 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 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > 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 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
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
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 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. > 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. > 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 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
