Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: vsnsdualce@××××××××.net
To: linux-kernel@×××××××××××.org, gentoo-user@l.g.o, ubuntu-users@××××××××××××.com, debian-user@××××××××××××.org
Subject: [gentoo-user] Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 15:32:43
1 Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 hours
2 after it was published:
7 Yes they can, greg.
9 The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks
10 consideration between the licensee and the grantor.
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)
16 As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules
17 regarding the alienation of property apply.
19 Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor.
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.
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)).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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...
103 They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. They
104 CANNOT hold YOU.
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.
110 Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into thinking
111 otherwise.
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)
120 (Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here is
121 one
122 )
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
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 >
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 >
155 >
156 >
157 > HTH,