GPL can be revoked
Other urls found in this thread:
slashdot.org
amazon.com
encyclopediadramatica.rs
kiwifarms.net
openload.pw
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
news.ycombinator.com
twitter.com
>GPL can be revoked
No, it can't.
>MikeeUSA
Oh, that explains why we keep seeing these threads. This guy should not be allowed to use a computer.
>No, it can't.
amazon.com
------------------------
p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses
under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect.
There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked.
See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4"
--Lawrence Rosen
p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by
the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may
be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the
payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more
complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a
licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a
contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid
revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the
software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon
that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory
estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The
concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more
fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these
contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license
that is revocable.
--Lawrence Rosen
p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the
plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee
were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the
license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending
the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest
is revocable."
--Lawrence Rosen
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and
Intellectual property Law
p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the
explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of
/consideration/:
...
The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say
much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For
now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the
same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer,
acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."
--Lawrence Rosen
------------------------
> David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
> "Termination of rights
> [...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases
> code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
> [...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it
> is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to
> commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can
> enforce themselves.
>No, it can't.
Yes it can.
A license without an attached interest is revocable at will by the owner.
What did you pay the owners of the various GPL'd works you use? Nothing? Then you have nothing to bind them to 'your' 'terms'; for they are NOT your terms: they are the author's instructions as to how YOU MAY use HIS property.
encyclopediadramatica.rs
Mikhail Kvaratskhelia is what constitutional lawyers sometimes call a werewolf – the most unappealing possible victim. He is a creepy, repellent, misogynistic crank, given to uttering threats of violent death against female Linux hackers, and quite possibly clinically insane. I first became aware of his existence last week when he sent a long letter of complaint to Richard Stallman, Linus, Bruce Perens, and myself asserting that his speech rights had been trampled on and linking to blog entries by Ms. Eicher and one other person. The letter was disturbing – intelligent in a feral way, but unhinged.
I was eyeball-deep in a new coding project; I read both blog posts, finding the story therein sad and troubling. Kvaratskhelia had posted level maps for a first-person-shooter game called Nexuiz on SourceForge; possibly also executable code, the accounts are unclear. The accounts concur that the maps contained violent imagery and slogans attacking women’s rights, and this creep’s ugly and hate-filled letter leaves me in no doubt that the maps were ugly and hate-filled as well.
I did not pursue the matter until RMS replied on 15 October asking whether Kvaratskhelia had made backups of the censored material. I thought this was a sensible question; it was the first one that had occurred to me, anyway. Following this, I searched the web for relevant material (I had deleted Kvaratskhelia’s letter rather quickly – my eyeballs felt soiled by it) and found Ms. Eicher’s original blog entry. I felt, at that point, the pricking of my conscience for not having responded to Kvaratskhelia’s earlier complaint immediately. I wrote Ms. Eicher an email condemning the suppression of speech and expressing my judgment that she owed Kvaratskhelia an apology for her suppressive conduct – which she refused to do.
This isn't the free as in freedom people telling us that our license for freedom can be revoked at any time, is it?
Oh right, (((Rosen))).
who cares about this dying license.
The free as in freedom people say they own your code and can kick you out and hand it all over to women, and then sue you as a "thank you".
However under US law, a license without an attached interest is revocable by the grantor at will.
Just as you can lend your lawnmower for nothing, and then demand it back, the same goes for code that you own and have lent (licensed) for nothing.
That is not true in any jurisdiction I am aware of.
Mike I believe in you. Someday you will feel the soft touch of a woman and get laid, but not like this. Try going outside.
GPL v2 can be revoked, v3 can't be because of the new clauses from what I've heard/understood
BSD also suffers from this "defect" but the (Open)BSD hackers do not care about law since they are hackers.
Linux used to be the same. Then women arrived.
Ah. Thanks user.
>GPL v2 can be revoked, v3 can't be because of the new clauses from what I've heard/understood
Even with the GPLv3's "no revocation by grantor" clause, the owner can still, by law, revoke the license at any time.
The reason is because you did not pay for that clause to be in effect. You did not give anything up, to him, in exchange. He cannot be held to the "terms" by law because the "terms" are not backed on your side by anything.
Their only recourse is to beg the court, under equity, not law, to not enforce the owners lawful rights ("please it's not fair") (equitable estopple, and it's son: promissory estopple).
Such things are usually used when the owner made a promise knowing you'd go out and spend money based on that promise. They personally know you and are leading you on etc.
>That is not true in any jurisdiction I am aware of.
You must not be aware of the USA.
Ask yourself: what did I pay to buy these licensing terms. If you have no answer: sorry there are no "terms": just bare permission from the owner.
Which he can end at any time.
I live in the USA and as a lawyer, I can assure you, you're wrong. Just let it go Mike, like I said, there are better ways to get your cock sucked.
Remeber: when the other side starts talking about equitable estopple etc that means they have no legal argument.
When your land lord throws you out on the street for non-payment of rent, you are going to be arguing equitable estopple and promessory estopple (ie: more equitable estopple). It's not a defense in law, but in equity.
The court might give you another month or two to pack your things. If you throw in "FUCK WHY PEOPLE", then your equitable defense increases slightly in the DC courts. If you are a woman, even moreso, but if the landlord is a woman... sorry.
Proove me wrong then.
I too, am a lawyer in the USA.
The law is that a bare license is revocable.
The GPL, with respects to Linux, is just such a thing. In other cases (FSF, etc) the programmers assigned over their copyrights (just for this reason). Not so with Linux and other projects.
The GPL is not a transfer. It is a non-exclusive bare license. It can be revoked.
Lawrence Rosen, in his book, is correct.
Would they even sue you if you're the sole developer of a project and decide you are now close sourcing your project. And how do you sue someone if they are an anonymous person on the internet.
How about someone bring this shit to court and then we would all know for sure?
FREETARDS BTFO.
Best part?
Not a single freetard with their imaginary law school hat has made a valid argument.
If GPL states it can be revoked - it can be revoked.
If law states it can ve revoked - it can be revoked.
You can even pirate GPL covered code. Just copy it without allowance of owner of the copy licensed to him.
GPL is a license and is covered by regulations of llegal system as well.
>The author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.
>text-mode casino game
This obviously isn't kernel code, so why was it spammed on the kernel mailing list? I suspect the author (and OP) is a schizophrenic.
Mike, you own no kernel code for which you could revoke a license. Nobody uses any code you've ever written. Nobody has ever heard of "GPC-Slots 2", let alone played it.
Stop schizoposting.
What "no revoke"ers like to cite is a recent case regarding some printer drivers.
The facts of that case are;
"company" makes printer drivers for linux for some reason (no one knows or asks why).
"company" presents an offer to do business on it's website: you may either: pay for a commercial license OR follow the GPL.
Zaibatsu comes across this offer and laughs. For years the Zaibatsu laughs. Some time later the satanic Zaibatsu decideds to make use of these "printer drivers", however being a Zaibatsu, knows that "law" is just a formality it does not need to extend to worthless gajin.
Zaibatsu neither pays for a commercial license NOR does it follow the GPL! hahhahahahHAHAHHAAHHHHhahahhahAAHAHHAAHHA FUCK GAIJIN
(note: Zaibatsu may not be, on it's face, nipponease, but we all know that all successful south-east asian organizations are controlled by the shadow hand in Kyoto)
"company" becomes aware of Zaibatsu's dealings, probably because Zaibatsu informed "company" purely to vex the baka gajin why piggus.
"company" becomes vexed, indeed. "company" sues Zaibatsu.
Zaibatsu says it does not have to obey "company" because there was no K (contract).
California judge decided "company" may collect damages equal to what the commercial license cost, or seek copyright damages.
Here the preliminary writing is where the contract language exists ("pay us or follow the GPL"), the Zaibatsu has no lawful right to use the printer drivers absent permission from "company". It can gain permission by following the permission given by "company" in the form of the GPL: if it violates that it has violated "company"'s copyright (and is liable for copyright damages), Alternatively Zaibatsu may pay for a Commercial license contract, and thus gain permission that way.
"No Recinders" claim that this "proves" the GPL is a K (contract) and not a bare license, they are incorrect. The GPL was an alternative to the commercial contract, that is why copyright damages were available.
Get a load of this.
OP created this thread on HN yesterday and has been spamming the same schizo word salad there. He even created a new account an hour ago to post in that thread, even though the thread has been flagged and dead since yesterday.
Needless to say this is not rational behavior. OP is mentally ill.
It's hilarious that you write walls of schizo text about revoking GPL licensed code. You spend more time writing these walls of text than you ever have writing worthwhile code, therefore you own no worthwhile code and have nothing worth revoking, making the entire matter of revoking licenses to code completely irrelevant to your life.
That's humorous.
Zaibatsu settles with GPL printer-driver "company" out of court. No one knows what the """"""settlement"""""" entailed: probably the Zaibatsu allowed the white piggus to live. Very fair.
The case, which didn't go any further, proved that you can try to enforce a K ("pay us for commercial copyright license contract") OR try to enforce the GPL as a copyright license (maybe get statutory damages).
IE: It doesn't do what the "no rescind"ers think it did. It strengthened the notion that the only thing that allows Z to use the code IS the permission (license) given, unless you come to an actual agreement (a K, give $$), it seemed like the court was going to allow the "company" to proceed either way, on either theory (Breach of contract for the K (give us money for commercial license) or violation of Copyright for not abiding by the GPL terms -- damages which usually are only available IN bare copyright licenses (with commercial licenses, a breach just gets you contract damages))
Here is a screenshot of MikeeUSA's shitty "casino game" that nobody has ever heard of before.
Mike honestly believes this software is significant enough to spam the LKML about.
>kiwifarms.net
OP(MikeeUSA) is to open source what 'sovereign citizens' are to traffic stops.
If you were a lawyer you would have no problem with walls of text, since you would be reading cases every day.
They deleted it because of a lack of desire to see that their whole edifice is, legally in the USA, built on a foundation of sand.
Why do you think the FSF has always required copyright assignment...
No counter arguments, just call me names.
You haven't addressed Rosen's opinion, nor the good professors.
>amazon.com
Why are you continuing to post in a thread that got deleted yesterday? Why do you spam copy-past word salad around the internet, convinced that your opinion matters?
Because you are an unhinged schizophrenic.
>Mike honestly believes this software is significant enough to spam the LKML about.
What is significant enough is that the GPL is revokable absent an attached interest.
One avenue of argument you all have been using is "well no one has ever done it" (False Author of ATSC Capture and Edit Tool did revoke and the distros did quietly remove his software rather than face potentiall litigation).
Well here it is. A revocation, including words supporting the ability.
And if the little game can revoke, so can the Linux gratis kernel programmers who are being treated as employees (read: CoC'd by do-nothing women (story of the west))
>spam
And it's not a commercial solicitation...
Use the Apache License, version 2.0.
Imagine how assblasted was the tranny who wrote this.
You have never written software worth revoking, because you're a schizophrenic.
Because I am a lawyer, I have read up on the issue, and I know I'm right.
That "word salad"
are some quick arguments from other lawyers because you will not read my long expositions on the law.
The GPL is a copyleft virus. Its nature replaces remittance to the author with use and further transmission of the virus.
The interest is inherent.
one copy of MIT license, please.
It has always been a faith based contract. Why would people think otherwise?
It was meant to be people providing use to others out of their own prerogative, whether that be kindness or because there's deeply embedded malware in it.
>steroid-addled micropenis
average MIT license user.Give me Apache or give me nothing at all.
But you can also modify that mower to the point where it's not even recognisable as the grantor's product.
I'd go further and say that it has intrinsic problems as much as normal licensing.
Hence BOTH insufficiently provide for the people's natural rights.
Both situations enforced a degree of bondage.
For those who do not like to read.
See this book here:
amazon.com
That is where these quotes are from.
I supply them because you will simply not believe what I say. I am a licensed attorney, I have studied this subject in-depth. The GPL is revocable by the gratis linux contributors.
This applies to other GPL'd software aswell where there is no attached interest. They are simply grants of permission, a lending of a piece of property. It can be revoked at will by the owner.
>If you were a lawyer you would have no problem with walls of text, since you would be reading cases every day.
You have no idea how bad things are.
>Because I am a lawyer,
You're a schizophrenic, not a lawyer.
>I am a lawyer
What happens, by law, if a person finds a snail in the beverage they just purchased?
Fucking kek thread that's why i browse reddit.
Here you are bringing up the functional vs expression issue regarding copyrights on programs.
We think of many programs as purely functional, but the courts seem to disagree often. The only time one seems to surely win on a functional argument is if there's only one proper way to write a particular expression of a programming idea.
Oracle v Google makes this even harder. (interface declarations are not purely functional??!)
If a linux gratis programmer was to revoke, and he can revoke, the argument ("we'll just reimplement the code he took out") engenders years of litigation to determine weather this new code is derivative of the old linux coder's work.
Why is this on LKML?
I am Confucius.
god you are such a useless faggot. Maybe we should out your sorry ass as a Jow Forums shitposter? If you're really a lawyer you would have more important things to do than shitpost on Jow Forums. I guess what that means is that you're a shit lawyer who can't find any clients so you just pick on trannies who say mean things about you and make you question your sexuality. Here's a hint faggot- you guzzle far too much cum to ever be heterosexual. You're the natural bottom, the submissive, the cockslut, you crave to be filled by faggot cock. Embrace it you whore. Because you're a shit lawyer and would make a lot more money on the street corner than you will arguing with hobo GPL devs
Even ERS is tired of your shit
>What happens, by law, if a person finds a snail in the beverage they just purchased?
If in a canned beverage: Sounds like a manufacturing defect. Sue the soda company. And the vendor company.
If at a restaurant: probably a violation of local health regulations, but this is jurisdictional. Is the snail raw or cooked?
But is it a large chain... perhaps they are violating some federal guidelines... but then they will probably be a franchise and the head office will say it's not involved at the local level...
Not sure what the damages would be: what can a snail do? Unless it's a very hot snail and it burns away your innards on the way down. Though it could be covered in bacteria...
Perhaps you get sick... and sue for lost wages for being out of work for the sickness... the snail being a but-for cause of your misfortune... the cause of the snail being the gross negligence of the bottling company (or restaurant).
More information is needed on the state of the snail'd victim.
Why do you think I don't show you proof?
Because you'll try to disbar me.
>Even ERS is tired of your shit
It's ESR. Sadly, like any lay-person, it seems that he seems to think the issue is settled just because no one took any action in the 2 months since the CoC.
Your ownership of your code doesn't evaporate just because you didn't take legal action immediately...
But this is what you lay-people try to tell all the programmers who could and can rescind.
GPL can dance.
your move.
What is working going to get me?
Tell me? Tell me what working would get me.
Everything I want has been banned by CoC sucking white men and "their" women.
So I code quakeC, and enlighten you as to the law.
It vexes you.
We will keep archiving these threads and eventually we will have proof. Hopefully a mod will oust you via IP logs or something of the like in a few weeks. Sage in all fields btw, I'm not contributing to your little circlejerk. You just need a nice big black cock in your face.
Get off my Jow Forums you faggot
Please don't let this thread die.
Notice how the "anti recind"ers have no arguments.
I've refuted them all.
Then they complain that the refutations have "too many words"
Spread the word to your linux contributing friends that they can recind, and that they should as a united front.
why are you so mad at the guy? either prove that he's wrong, or accept that he has a point. it's not hard.
...
The answer is:
en.wikipedia.org
The English common law equivalent of:
en.wikipedia.org
You might be forgiven if not a commonwealth user, but the equivalent must be brought up in US law schools by now considering we do the same in my country with some US precedent now (with skepticism because holy fuck US, your cases are wack).
>We will keep archiving these threads and eventually we will have proof. Hopefully a mod will oust you via IP logs or something of the like in a few weeks. Sage in all fields btw, I'm not contributing to your little circlejerk. You just need a nice big black cock in your face.
I really don't care. I have nothing to lose, because I have nothing to gain.
I am correct on the law.
A license, absent an attached interest, is revocable by the owner of the property. It is simply permission to use. Not a transfer of rights.
I know that makes you mad, that the GPL can be rescinded by the gratis contributors.
I know that being anti-womens rights and being pro-YHWH is a violation of ethics (like in every profession) and you will use that against me if you can.
I know I vex you.
But you give me no reason to care. I hate the society you have built.
Its like arguing with Terry. People proved him wrong multiple times
If sage were in all fields you lying trolling mongoloid, then your name would not be anonymous. Faggot.
well, i didn't see the other threads, and in this thread there's nothing... i find this subject very interesting, and as for now i'm inclined to the lainposter, seeing that everyone is only namecalling him.
OP is MikeeUSA, a known schizophrenic and pedophile. Posting pictures of lain doesn't make him right.
I understand. I am too lazy but he was active on linux mailing list, few threads on lainchan and here, on Jow Forums
8ch/tech is great idea to look too
i find ironic that you tie his arguments to his person on an anonymous imageboard
i see. well, i admit that i'm a bit lazy too, i would just like to have a general idea of why he's wrong, why his argument doesn't hold water. i would be very disappointed if, by looking at those threads, i only find the same walls of text everywhere.
>Posting pictures of lain doesn't make him right.
But Lain is love. Lain is life.
Are you saying he is perverting the lain?
>Its like arguing with Terry. People proved him wrong multiple times
Thou shall not slander the lord and saviour's name.
>>i find ironic that you tie his arguments to his person on an anonymous imageboard
Google the software in the OP link: GPC-Slots 2
You'll find that it comes from MikeeUSA aka Mikhail Kvaratskhelia, who is known for being mentally unstable. OP is also mentally unstable, as plenty of people have shown already in this thread. There is no sense denying that OP is MikeeUSA.
it's not like i don't believe you, i simply don't care. as i said, i find ironic that the identity of someone matters on an anonymous imageboard.
I don't think you understand what irony is, or how Jow Forums works.
On Jow Forums you're only as anonymous as you choose to be. OP is not anonymous, because he's made it abundantly clear who he is.
well, whatever floats your boat. i still don't think his identity matters, at all.
The fact that he's a known mentally ill lolcow should matter to you, if you have any sense.
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
>guarantee
>make sure
>forbid anyone to deny you these rights or ask you to surrender the rights
To replace the license after legally offering guarantees would be fraud.
It matters when someone steps "out of the line". Schizos are prone to this cause of their weird way of speaking. Normal anons? Not so much cause they dont try to makr their speech unique.
Its not that imageboards are anonymous. They arent. People are very curious of other user's identity.
>without an attached interest
It's very rarely that simple with GPL software. You write code and you release it under the GPL and you never accept anyone's changes or contributions ever.. then perhaps you can claim nobody has an attached interest. However, if you release your GPL software and I start using it and I find bug and submit bug fixes and you add them and make new versions with more bugs and I submit some bug fixes and some code for new features too and five years later you decide you want to revoke your GPL.. can you really claim I have no vested interest?
>shitty "casino game" that nobody has ever heard of before
Well, they have now. I guess this isn't a too bad way of marketing your shitty game.
An unfulfillable contract would be discharged through frustration or various other contract law reasons that would render it void.
You're ignoring the initial guarantees which render the license irrevocable in the first place.
Assuming revocation is begging the question.
God i hope you're right
FUCK the GPL
Three simple words send squatters into a frothing rage
>GPL is revocable
>normal anons
uhh where do you think you are
(he's not)
Ofcourse the GPL is revocable
It's not something new either, see
news.ycombinator.com
I've made threads in the past about how my compamy uses GPL'd code all the time (in the US), and they just don't give a shit because the guy who wrote said code under the GPL works in our company and if we got "caught", he could always revoke the license
>You're ignoring the initial guarantees which render the license irrevocable
How can you guarantee something without a contractual term or a statutory guarantee?
And with regards to statutory guarantees, you usually can't make a contract that excludes them.
So basically, revocation is completely possible and the contract itself is void. The issue becomes misrepresentation I think.
Have there been any cases involving the GPL? I need a refresher... but it sounds like it cannot be enforceable.
I've always thought it was a faith thing and that the people using it were risking misrepresenting themselves by inferring it's enforceability.
Yes it can, and your attempts at character assassination throughout this thread is libelous. If this person is who you say you should seek legal counsel, an order for your IP address isn't that difficult to acquire. I seriously doubt any action has been taken.
The terms of the license itself are a claim of binding on the issuer.
It's been mentioned in countless threads throughout years that the GPL is FUD and everyone knows it barely applies to ie China, India, whatever
I cannot fathom how delusional GPL fans can be to ignore that only the people supporting the GPL actually respect the GPL
That's literally what is rebutted in the OP and in various other posts
Not said anywhere that the GPL itself is a warranty against its revocation.
this
Kek so many assblasted trannys insisting that they btfo based nutjob poster. I followed this thread and the last one and their arguments are
>He is wrong and its not my job to explain why.
It seems pretty clear that even if jis program is worthless people are terrified that he is right and are attacking him instead of his arguments to shut him up.
The virginity emanating from your post is tangible.