1 |
Apologize for the follow up: |
2 |
|
3 |
Not being able to rescind the license is like saying someone who was |
4 |
lent a lawnmower gets to keep it indefinitely with no contest because |
5 |
the person who lent it can't rescind the grant to the lawnmower. |
6 |
|
7 |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:39 PM R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> This was cross posted so many places I have to preface: I got here |
10 |
> from the Gentoo list. If this only makes it to the crossposter forward |
11 |
> or follow up on the information as you see fit. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The post is crass but still has technical merit. More importantly he |
14 |
> seems to be right, the idea that the grantees can't rescind their |
15 |
> grant is pretty strange. I'm allowed to change my mind, and you have |
16 |
> no claim to my labor if you didn't pay for it, nor can you make me |
17 |
> work for free. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:16 PM <vsnsdualce@××××××××.net> wrote: |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > > (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, |
22 |
> > > because of (1))... |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will. |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD |
29 |
> > license(s). |
30 |
> > The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests |
31 |
> > are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis |
32 |
> > (paying) customers |
33 |
> > may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current |
34 |
> > versions they have |
35 |
> > in their posession, paid for by good consideration. |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> |
38 |
> <offtopic> |
39 |
> There is one thing you get for free (that you probably had anyway): |
40 |
> |
41 |
> I was seeing whether or not the disclaimer of liability in most FOSS |
42 |
> licenses was valid. They may not be, *especially* in those United |
43 |
> States which require a guarantee of merchantability or suitability for |
44 |
> a particular purpose. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> Read: You made it, you claim it does something, and if someone uses it |
47 |
> and it *doesn't* do that thing explosively it's still your fault even |
48 |
> if it was free. The amount of damages are definitely tempered by the |
49 |
> fact it was free. Depending on the license, state, and judge, you |
50 |
> could have given consideration even though you did not pay money. |
51 |
> </offtopic> |
52 |
> |
53 |
> > Everyone else has NOTHING. |
54 |
> > Do you understand that? |
55 |
> > |
56 |
> |
57 |
> I think it is important to clarify that it can be requested you stop |
58 |
> distributing the work or stop using it for some commercial purpose, |
59 |
> but there is no way you could e.g. be forced to delete copies of it |
60 |
> you already have. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Also: Consideration can be nonmonetary, can you speak to this? |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Cheers, |
65 |
> R0b0t1 |
66 |
> |
67 |
> > [... snip anger ...] |
68 |
> > |
69 |
> > On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote: |
70 |
> > > (1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists. |
71 |
> > > |
72 |
> > > (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, |
73 |
> > > because of (1))... |
74 |
> > > |
75 |
> > > (3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making |
76 |
> > > these mistakes. |
77 |
> > > |
78 |
> > > Thanks, |
79 |
> > > |
80 |
> > > -- |
81 |
> > > Raul |
82 |
> > > |
83 |
> > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM <visionsofalice@×××××××.it> wrote: |
84 |
> > >> |
85 |
> > >> Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 |
86 |
> > >> hours |
87 |
> > >> after it was published: |
88 |
> > >> |
89 |
> > >> |
90 |
> > >> |
91 |
> > >> |
92 |
> > >> Yes they can, greg. |
93 |
> > >> |
94 |
> > >> The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks |
95 |
> > >> consideration between the licensee and the grantor. |
96 |
> > >> |
97 |
> > >> (IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen |
98 |
> > >> to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, |
99 |
> > >> in |
100 |
> > >> fact, gain no bargained-for benefit) |
101 |
> > >> |
102 |
> > >> As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules |
103 |
> > >> regarding the alienation of property apply. |
104 |
> > >> |
105 |
> > >> Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. |
106 |
> > >> |
107 |
> > >> The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your |
108 |
> > >> as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and |
109 |
> > >> "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming |
110 |
> > >> your right to rescind the license. |
111 |
> > >> |
112 |
> > >> Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL |
113 |
> > >> version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any |
114 |
> > >> later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly |
115 |
> > >> savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one |
116 |
> > >> of |
117 |
> > >> them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to |
118 |
> > >> say |
119 |
> > >> that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt |
120 |
> > >> at the least)). |
121 |
> > >> |
122 |
> > >> |
123 |
> > >> |
124 |
> > >> |
125 |
> > >> The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause |
126 |
> > >> 4 |
127 |
> > >> of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause. |
128 |
> > >> |
129 |
> > >> However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a |
130 |
> > >> reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking |
131 |
> > >> specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses |
132 |
> > >> their |
133 |
> > >> permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that |
134 |
> > >> case |
135 |
> > >> the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission |
136 |
> > >> under the terms. |
137 |
> > >> |
138 |
> > >> Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as |
139 |
> > >> the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's |
140 |
> > >> public |
141 |
> > >> service announcement chooses to ignore. |
142 |
> > >> |
143 |
> > >> Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public |
144 |
> > >> and |
145 |
> > >> the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not |
146 |
> > >> impinge |
147 |
> > >> the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner |
148 |
> > >> vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, |
149 |
> > >> extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of |
150 |
> > >> property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a |
151 |
> > >> permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The |
152 |
> > >> impinged |
153 |
> > >> property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be |
154 |
> > >> taken |
155 |
> > >> back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so. |
156 |
> > >> |
157 |
> > >> |
158 |
> > >> |
159 |
> > >> Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. |
160 |
> > >> Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, |
161 |
> > >> even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it |
162 |
> > >> comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower |
163 |
> > >> (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of |
164 |
> > >> contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, |
165 |
> > >> and |
166 |
> > >> instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a |
167 |
> > >> Copyright License. |
168 |
> > >> |
169 |
> > >> The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: |
170 |
> > >> 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - |
171 |
> > >> opensource is great") |
172 |
> > >> 2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not |
173 |
> > >> Contract) |
174 |
> > >> 3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2 |
175 |
> > >> 4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions. |
176 |
> > >> (Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a |
177 |
> > >> district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much |
178 |
> > >> more consistent in it's rulings?) |
179 |
> > >> 5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract |
180 |
> > >> formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc. |
181 |
> > >> |
182 |
> > >> Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce |
183 |
> > >> Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck |
184 |
> > >> of |
185 |
> > >> happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those |
186 |
> > >> who |
187 |
> > >> support women. |
188 |
> > >> |
189 |
> > >> (This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy |
190 |
> > >> menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female |
191 |
> > >> children |
192 |
> > >> as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - - |
193 |
> > >> verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban |
194 |
> > >> world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their |
195 |
> > >> will.... who are not idolators of Women) |
196 |
> > >> |
197 |
> > >> |
198 |
> > >> |
199 |
> > >> |
200 |
> > >> Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your |
201 |
> > >> code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is... |
202 |
> > >> |
203 |
> > >> They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. |
204 |
> > >> They |
205 |
> > >> CANNOT hold YOU. |
206 |
> > >> |
207 |
> > >> You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from |
208 |
> > >> any |
209 |
> > >> future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are |
210 |
> > >> done harm. |
211 |
> > >> |
212 |
> > >> Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into |
213 |
> > >> thinking |
214 |
> > >> otherwise. |
215 |
> > >> |
216 |
> > >> And, yes, I am a lawyer. |
217 |
> > >> And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside |
218 |
> > >> counsel to analyze the fact pattern. (And even then all they could |
219 |
> > >> come |
220 |
> > >> up with was statements using weasel words "may" etc: not even wanting |
221 |
> > >> to |
222 |
> > >> commit to their clearly-disingenuous publication) |
223 |
> > >> |
224 |
> > >> |
225 |
> > >> (Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here |
226 |
> > >> is |
227 |
> > >> one |
228 |
> > >> http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf |
229 |
> > >> ) |
230 |
> > >> |
231 |
> > >> On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: |
232 |
> > >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@×××××××.it |
233 |
> > >> > wrote: |
234 |
> > >> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. |
235 |
> > >> > |
236 |
> > >> > No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. |
237 |
> > >> > |
238 |
> > >> > greg k-h |
239 |
> > >> |
240 |
> > >> |
241 |
> > >> |
242 |
> > >> On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: |
243 |
> > >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@×××××××.it |
244 |
> > >> > wrote: |
245 |
> > >> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant. |
246 |
> > >> > Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100: |
247 |
> > >> >>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information. |
248 |
> > >> > |
249 |
> > >> > I was explicitly cc'ed on this thread by visionsofalice. I've read the |
250 |
> > >> > whole thread, and the only useful thing I can contribute here is to |
251 |
> > >> > agree |
252 |
> > >> > with Greg and additionally provide some backup research on the point: |
253 |
> > >> > https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ |
254 |
> > >> > |
255 |
> > >> > Software Freedom Conservancy engaged our legal counsel to write a new |
256 |
> > >> > section for the Copyleft Guide that further explains the irrevocability |
257 |
> > >> > of |
258 |
> > >> > GPLv2. We published this when others raised these specious claims back |
259 |
> > >> > in |
260 |
> > >> > September. Direct link to new section: |
261 |
> > >> > https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 |
262 |
> > >> > |
263 |
> > >> > |
264 |
> > >> > HTH, |
265 |
> > >> |
266 |
> > >> |
267 |
> > >> |
268 |
> > |