Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Cc: ubuntu-users@××××××××××××.com, debian-user@××××××××××××.org, dng@××××××××××.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 20:42:30
Message-Id: CAAD4mYiL=rXhM1NZDOgm1=m1+SqsDR8r=ovg27e6WL=kG5sF7Q@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor. by R0b0t1
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 > >