1 |
> (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, |
2 |
> because of (1))... |
3 |
|
4 |
I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*. |
5 |
|
6 |
A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will. |
7 |
|
8 |
This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD |
9 |
license(s). |
10 |
The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests |
11 |
are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis |
12 |
(paying) customers |
13 |
may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current |
14 |
versions they have |
15 |
in their posession, paid for by good consideration. |
16 |
|
17 |
Everyone else has NOTHING. |
18 |
Do you understand that? |
19 |
|
20 |
In the case of the 1000's of linux copyright holders to whom no |
21 |
consideration |
22 |
was given by an entity, and the various BSD copyright holders (read: the |
23 |
programmers), |
24 |
who have not ASSIGNED their copyright over to some other entity, there |
25 |
is |
26 |
NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE. |
27 |
|
28 |
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT? |
29 |
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER THEY NOR YOU HAVE PROMISED NOT TO ELLECT |
30 |
TO USE YOUR AS-OF-RIGHT OPTION TO RESCIND YOUR GRATUITOUS LICENSE |
31 |
REGARDING |
32 |
YOUR WORK. |
33 |
|
34 |
One cannot rely on a promise that was never made, additionally many of |
35 |
them |
36 |
were never paid consideration for this non existant promise either. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
*(Note: I am both a programmer and an attorney, so I know the type) |
40 |
|
41 |
On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote: |
42 |
> (1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, |
45 |
> because of (1))... |
46 |
> |
47 |
> (3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making |
48 |
> these mistakes. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Thanks, |
51 |
> |
52 |
> -- |
53 |
> Raul |
54 |
> |
55 |
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM <visionsofalice@×××××××.it> wrote: |
56 |
>> |
57 |
>> Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 |
58 |
>> hours |
59 |
>> after it was published: |
60 |
>> |
61 |
>> |
62 |
>> |
63 |
>> |
64 |
>> Yes they can, greg. |
65 |
>> |
66 |
>> The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks |
67 |
>> consideration between the licensee and the grantor. |
68 |
>> |
69 |
>> (IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen |
70 |
>> to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, |
71 |
>> in |
72 |
>> fact, gain no bargained-for benefit) |
73 |
>> |
74 |
>> As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules |
75 |
>> regarding the alienation of property apply. |
76 |
>> |
77 |
>> Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. |
78 |
>> |
79 |
>> The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your |
80 |
>> as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and |
81 |
>> "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming |
82 |
>> your right to rescind the license. |
83 |
>> |
84 |
>> Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL |
85 |
>> version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any |
86 |
>> later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly |
87 |
>> savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one |
88 |
>> of |
89 |
>> them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to |
90 |
>> say |
91 |
>> that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt |
92 |
>> at the least)). |
93 |
>> |
94 |
>> |
95 |
>> |
96 |
>> |
97 |
>> The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause |
98 |
>> 4 |
99 |
>> of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause. |
100 |
>> |
101 |
>> However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a |
102 |
>> reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking |
103 |
>> specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses |
104 |
>> their |
105 |
>> permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that |
106 |
>> case |
107 |
>> the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission |
108 |
>> under the terms. |
109 |
>> |
110 |
>> Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as |
111 |
>> the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's |
112 |
>> public |
113 |
>> service announcement chooses to ignore. |
114 |
>> |
115 |
>> Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public |
116 |
>> and |
117 |
>> the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not |
118 |
>> impinge |
119 |
>> the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner |
120 |
>> vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, |
121 |
>> extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of |
122 |
>> property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a |
123 |
>> permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The |
124 |
>> impinged |
125 |
>> property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be |
126 |
>> taken |
127 |
>> back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so. |
128 |
>> |
129 |
>> |
130 |
>> |
131 |
>> Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. |
132 |
>> Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, |
133 |
>> even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it |
134 |
>> comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower |
135 |
>> (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of |
136 |
>> contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, |
137 |
>> and |
138 |
>> instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a |
139 |
>> Copyright License. |
140 |
>> |
141 |
>> The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: |
142 |
>> 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - |
143 |
>> opensource is great") |
144 |
>> 2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not |
145 |
>> Contract) |
146 |
>> 3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2 |
147 |
>> 4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions. |
148 |
>> (Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a |
149 |
>> district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much |
150 |
>> more consistent in it's rulings?) |
151 |
>> 5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract |
152 |
>> formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc. |
153 |
>> |
154 |
>> Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce |
155 |
>> Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck |
156 |
>> of |
157 |
>> happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those |
158 |
>> who |
159 |
>> support women. |
160 |
>> |
161 |
>> (This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy |
162 |
>> menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female |
163 |
>> children |
164 |
>> as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - - |
165 |
>> verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban |
166 |
>> world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their |
167 |
>> will.... who are not idolators of Women) |
168 |
>> |
169 |
>> |
170 |
>> |
171 |
>> |
172 |
>> Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your |
173 |
>> code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is... |
174 |
>> |
175 |
>> They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. |
176 |
>> They |
177 |
>> CANNOT hold YOU. |
178 |
>> |
179 |
>> You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from |
180 |
>> any |
181 |
>> future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are |
182 |
>> done harm. |
183 |
>> |
184 |
>> Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into |
185 |
>> thinking |
186 |
>> otherwise. |
187 |
>> |
188 |
>> And, yes, I am a lawyer. |
189 |
>> And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside |
190 |
>> counsel to analyze the fact pattern. (And even then all they could |
191 |
>> come |
192 |
>> up with was statements using weasel words "may" etc: not even wanting |
193 |
>> to |
194 |
>> commit to their clearly-disingenuous publication) |
195 |
>> |
196 |
>> |
197 |
>> (Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here |
198 |
>> is |
199 |
>> one |
200 |
>> http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf |
201 |
>> ) |
202 |
>> |
203 |
>> On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: |
204 |
>> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@×××××××.it |
205 |
>> > wrote: |
206 |
>> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. |
207 |
>> > |
208 |
>> > No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. |
209 |
>> > |
210 |
>> > greg k-h |
211 |
>> |
212 |
>> |
213 |
>> |
214 |
>> On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: |
215 |
>> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@×××××××.it |
216 |
>> > wrote: |
217 |
>> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. |
218 |
>> > Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100: |
219 |
>> >>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. |
220 |
>> > |
221 |
>> > I was explicitly cc'ed on this thread by visionsofalice. I've read the |
222 |
>> > whole thread, and the only useful thing I can contribute here is to |
223 |
>> > agree |
224 |
>> > with Greg and additionally provide some backup research on the point: |
225 |
>> > https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ |
226 |
>> > |
227 |
>> > Software Freedom Conservancy engaged our legal counsel to write a new |
228 |
>> > section for the Copyleft Guide that further explains the irrevocability |
229 |
>> > of |
230 |
>> > GPLv2. We published this when others raised these specious claims back |
231 |
>> > in |
232 |
>> > September. Direct link to new section: |
233 |
>> > https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 |
234 |
>> > |
235 |
>> > |
236 |
>> > HTH, |
237 |
>> |
238 |
>> |
239 |
>> |