1 |
This was cross posted so many places I have to preface: I got here |
2 |
from the Gentoo list. If this only makes it to the crossposter forward |
3 |
or follow up on the information as you see fit. |
4 |
|
5 |
The post is crass but still has technical merit. More importantly he |
6 |
seems to be right, the idea that the grantees can't rescind their |
7 |
grant is pretty strange. I'm allowed to change my mind, and you have |
8 |
no claim to my labor if you didn't pay for it, nor can you make me |
9 |
work for free. |
10 |
|
11 |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:16 PM <vsnsdualce@××××××××.net> wrote: |
12 |
> |
13 |
> > (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, |
14 |
> > because of (1))... |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD |
21 |
> license(s). |
22 |
> The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests |
23 |
> are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis |
24 |
> (paying) customers |
25 |
> may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current |
26 |
> versions they have |
27 |
> in their posession, paid for by good consideration. |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
<offtopic> |
31 |
There is one thing you get for free (that you probably had anyway): |
32 |
|
33 |
I was seeing whether or not the disclaimer of liability in most FOSS |
34 |
licenses was valid. They may not be, *especially* in those United |
35 |
States which require a guarantee of merchantability or suitability for |
36 |
a particular purpose. |
37 |
|
38 |
Read: You made it, you claim it does something, and if someone uses it |
39 |
and it *doesn't* do that thing explosively it's still your fault even |
40 |
if it was free. The amount of damages are definitely tempered by the |
41 |
fact it was free. Depending on the license, state, and judge, you |
42 |
could have given consideration even though you did not pay money. |
43 |
</offtopic> |
44 |
|
45 |
> Everyone else has NOTHING. |
46 |
> Do you understand that? |
47 |
> |
48 |
|
49 |
I think it is important to clarify that it can be requested you stop |
50 |
distributing the work or stop using it for some commercial purpose, |
51 |
but there is no way you could e.g. be forced to delete copies of it |
52 |
you already have. |
53 |
|
54 |
Also: Consideration can be nonmonetary, can you speak to this? |
55 |
|
56 |
Cheers, |
57 |
R0b0t1 |
58 |
|
59 |
> [... snip anger ...] |
60 |
> |
61 |
> On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote: |
62 |
> > (1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists. |
63 |
> > |
64 |
> > (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, |
65 |
> > because of (1))... |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> > (3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making |
68 |
> > these mistakes. |
69 |
> > |
70 |
> > Thanks, |
71 |
> > |
72 |
> > -- |
73 |
> > Raul |
74 |
> > |
75 |
> > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM <visionsofalice@×××××××.it> wrote: |
76 |
> >> |
77 |
> >> Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 |
78 |
> >> hours |
79 |
> >> after it was published: |
80 |
> >> |
81 |
> >> |
82 |
> >> |
83 |
> >> |
84 |
> >> Yes they can, greg. |
85 |
> >> |
86 |
> >> The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks |
87 |
> >> consideration between the licensee and the grantor. |
88 |
> >> |
89 |
> >> (IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen |
90 |
> >> to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, |
91 |
> >> in |
92 |
> >> fact, gain no bargained-for benefit) |
93 |
> >> |
94 |
> >> As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules |
95 |
> >> regarding the alienation of property apply. |
96 |
> >> |
97 |
> >> Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. |
98 |
> >> |
99 |
> >> The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your |
100 |
> >> as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and |
101 |
> >> "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming |
102 |
> >> your right to rescind the license. |
103 |
> >> |
104 |
> >> Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL |
105 |
> >> version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any |
106 |
> >> later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly |
107 |
> >> savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one |
108 |
> >> of |
109 |
> >> them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to |
110 |
> >> say |
111 |
> >> that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt |
112 |
> >> at the least)). |
113 |
> >> |
114 |
> >> |
115 |
> >> |
116 |
> >> |
117 |
> >> The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause |
118 |
> >> 4 |
119 |
> >> of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause. |
120 |
> >> |
121 |
> >> However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a |
122 |
> >> reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking |
123 |
> >> specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses |
124 |
> >> their |
125 |
> >> permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that |
126 |
> >> case |
127 |
> >> the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission |
128 |
> >> under the terms. |
129 |
> >> |
130 |
> >> Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as |
131 |
> >> the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's |
132 |
> >> public |
133 |
> >> service announcement chooses to ignore. |
134 |
> >> |
135 |
> >> Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public |
136 |
> >> and |
137 |
> >> the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not |
138 |
> >> impinge |
139 |
> >> the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner |
140 |
> >> vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, |
141 |
> >> extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of |
142 |
> >> property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a |
143 |
> >> permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The |
144 |
> >> impinged |
145 |
> >> property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be |
146 |
> >> taken |
147 |
> >> back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so. |
148 |
> >> |
149 |
> >> |
150 |
> >> |
151 |
> >> Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. |
152 |
> >> Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, |
153 |
> >> even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it |
154 |
> >> comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower |
155 |
> >> (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of |
156 |
> >> contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, |
157 |
> >> and |
158 |
> >> instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a |
159 |
> >> Copyright License. |
160 |
> >> |
161 |
> >> The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: |
162 |
> >> 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - |
163 |
> >> opensource is great") |
164 |
> >> 2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not |
165 |
> >> Contract) |
166 |
> >> 3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2 |
167 |
> >> 4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions. |
168 |
> >> (Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a |
169 |
> >> district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much |
170 |
> >> more consistent in it's rulings?) |
171 |
> >> 5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract |
172 |
> >> formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc. |
173 |
> >> |
174 |
> >> Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce |
175 |
> >> Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck |
176 |
> >> of |
177 |
> >> happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those |
178 |
> >> who |
179 |
> >> support women. |
180 |
> >> |
181 |
> >> (This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy |
182 |
> >> menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female |
183 |
> >> children |
184 |
> >> as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - - |
185 |
> >> verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban |
186 |
> >> world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their |
187 |
> >> will.... who are not idolators of Women) |
188 |
> >> |
189 |
> >> |
190 |
> >> |
191 |
> >> |
192 |
> >> Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your |
193 |
> >> code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is... |
194 |
> >> |
195 |
> >> They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. |
196 |
> >> They |
197 |
> >> CANNOT hold YOU. |
198 |
> >> |
199 |
> >> You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from |
200 |
> >> any |
201 |
> >> future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are |
202 |
> >> done harm. |
203 |
> >> |
204 |
> >> Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into |
205 |
> >> thinking |
206 |
> >> otherwise. |
207 |
> >> |
208 |
> >> And, yes, I am a lawyer. |
209 |
> >> And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside |
210 |
> >> counsel to analyze the fact pattern. (And even then all they could |
211 |
> >> come |
212 |
> >> up with was statements using weasel words "may" etc: not even wanting |
213 |
> >> to |
214 |
> >> commit to their clearly-disingenuous publication) |
215 |
> >> |
216 |
> >> |
217 |
> >> (Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here |
218 |
> >> is |
219 |
> >> one |
220 |
> >> http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf |
221 |
> >> ) |
222 |
> >> |
223 |
> >> On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: |
224 |
> >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@×××××××.it |
225 |
> >> > wrote: |
226 |
> >> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. |
227 |
> >> > |
228 |
> >> > No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. |
229 |
> >> > |
230 |
> >> > greg k-h |
231 |
> >> |
232 |
> >> |
233 |
> >> |
234 |
> >> On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: |
235 |
> >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@×××××××.it |
236 |
> >> > wrote: |
237 |
> >> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. |
238 |
> >> > Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100: |
239 |
> >> >>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. |
240 |
> >> > |
241 |
> >> > I was explicitly cc'ed on this thread by visionsofalice. I've read the |
242 |
> >> > whole thread, and the only useful thing I can contribute here is to |
243 |
> >> > agree |
244 |
> >> > with Greg and additionally provide some backup research on the point: |
245 |
> >> > https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ |
246 |
> >> > |
247 |
> >> > Software Freedom Conservancy engaged our legal counsel to write a new |
248 |
> >> > section for the Copyleft Guide that further explains the irrevocability |
249 |
> >> > of |
250 |
> >> > GPLv2. We published this when others raised these specious claims back |
251 |
> >> > in |
252 |
> >> > September. Direct link to new section: |
253 |
> >> > https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 |
254 |
> >> > |
255 |
> >> > |
256 |
> >> > HTH, |
257 |
> >> |
258 |
> >> |
259 |
> >> |
260 |
> |