1 |
Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 hours |
2 |
after it was published: |
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
Yes they can, greg. |
8 |
|
9 |
The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks |
10 |
consideration between the licensee and the grantor. |
11 |
|
12 |
(IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen |
13 |
to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, in |
14 |
fact, gain no bargained-for benefit) |
15 |
|
16 |
As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules |
17 |
regarding the alienation of property apply. |
18 |
|
19 |
Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. |
20 |
|
21 |
The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your |
22 |
as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and |
23 |
"keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming |
24 |
your right to rescind the license. |
25 |
|
26 |
Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL |
27 |
version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any |
28 |
later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly |
29 |
savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one of |
30 |
them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to say |
31 |
that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt |
32 |
at the least)). |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause 4 |
38 |
of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause. |
39 |
|
40 |
However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a |
41 |
reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking |
42 |
specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses their |
43 |
permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that case |
44 |
the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission |
45 |
under the terms. |
46 |
|
47 |
Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as |
48 |
the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's public |
49 |
service announcement chooses to ignore. |
50 |
|
51 |
Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public and |
52 |
the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not impinge |
53 |
the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner |
54 |
vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, |
55 |
extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of |
56 |
property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a |
57 |
permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The impinged |
58 |
property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be taken |
59 |
back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so. |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. |
64 |
Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, |
65 |
even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it |
66 |
comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower |
67 |
(district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of |
68 |
contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, and |
69 |
instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a |
70 |
Copyright License. |
71 |
|
72 |
The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: |
73 |
1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - |
74 |
opensource is great") |
75 |
2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not |
76 |
Contract) |
77 |
3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2 |
78 |
4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions. |
79 |
(Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a |
80 |
district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much |
81 |
more consistent in it's rulings?) |
82 |
5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract |
83 |
formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc. |
84 |
|
85 |
Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce |
86 |
Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck of |
87 |
happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those who |
88 |
support women. |
89 |
|
90 |
(This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy |
91 |
menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female children |
92 |
as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - - |
93 |
verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban |
94 |
world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their |
95 |
will.... who are not idolators of Women) |
96 |
|
97 |
|
98 |
|
99 |
|
100 |
Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your |
101 |
code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is... |
102 |
|
103 |
They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. They |
104 |
CANNOT hold YOU. |
105 |
|
106 |
You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from any |
107 |
future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are |
108 |
done harm. |
109 |
|
110 |
Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into thinking |
111 |
otherwise. |
112 |
|
113 |
And, yes, I am a lawyer. |
114 |
And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside |
115 |
counsel to analyze the fact pattern. (And even then all they could come |
116 |
up with was statements using weasel words "may" etc: not even wanting to |
117 |
commit to their clearly-disingenuous publication) |
118 |
|
119 |
|
120 |
(Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here is |
121 |
one http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf |
122 |
) |
123 |
|
124 |
On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: |
125 |
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@×××××××.it |
126 |
> wrote: |
127 |
>> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. |
128 |
> |
129 |
> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. |
130 |
> |
131 |
> greg k-h |
132 |
|
133 |
|
134 |
|
135 |
On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: |
136 |
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@×××××××.it |
137 |
> wrote: |
138 |
>> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. |
139 |
> Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100: |
140 |
>>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. |
141 |
> |
142 |
> I was explicitly cc'ed on this thread by visionsofalice. I've read the |
143 |
> whole thread, and the only useful thing I can contribute here is to |
144 |
> agree |
145 |
> with Greg and additionally provide some backup research on the point: |
146 |
> https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ |
147 |
> |
148 |
> Software Freedom Conservancy engaged our legal counsel to write a new |
149 |
> section for the Copyleft Guide that further explains the irrevocability |
150 |
> of |
151 |
> GPLv2. We published this when others raised these specious claims back |
152 |
> in |
153 |
> September. Direct link to new section: |
154 |
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 |
155 |
> |
156 |
> |
157 |
> HTH, |