Host agrees to DMCA takedown of GPL'd work after Author rescinds license

A license, absent an interest, is revocable.
You fucking piece of filth.

>call me after counter-notice when you'll be getting ready to suck balls in court.

I am correct on the law.
And I own the fucking copyright, so go and FUCK yourself.

CoCsuckers BTFO
>I have no satania and I must debirupost

The GPL ___IS___ revokable.

It is a BARE license.
With NO ATTACHED INTEREST (ie: you didn't pay, basically).

And following a pre-existing duty is NOT consideration you FUCKING morons.

>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

posting in an asspie thread

Not all GPL versions have the same text.

>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

responding to a tranny CoCsucking shitposter

>Intellectual property Law
There's no such thing.

/thread

Doesn't matter, it's still a bare license.
You didn't pay for it.
It's simply permission from the owner.
v1, v2, v3.

All bare licenses.
v3's "irrevocable by grantor" clause is inoperable unless you purchased a license from the grantor, which many corps do to protect themselves and "lock in" the terms.

FUD

Nope, another FUCKING MORON, who's not studied an hour of law.

I know very well the text of the various GPLs.

The underlying law is what is at issue here.

That simply is: without an attached interest, those "terms" mean _nothing_ under the law.

ZERO.

Now you can plead and beg the court under equity to not enforce the owner's legal rights, you can do that in any licensor-licensee case. When you have no legal leg to stand on that's your last port of call.

you mad

Nope, TRUTH.

And linux-kernel is under v2 which doesn't even attempt to have an inoperative 'not revocable by grantor' clause.

Please don't hire a jew to represent yourself, the process would be a hoot.

> 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.

Attached: lain_8_640.jpg (640x480, 157K)

I'm a license attorney, but if it comes down to a court fight I'll definitely be hiring some attorneys.

He who represents himself has a fool for a client.

>using the GPL in the first place

Attached: IMG_2200.jpg (1334x1334, 206K)

Also good, you would be embarassed AND broke.

Nope, revoking licenses from degenerate scum makes me anything but.
you mad

Got a problem?

Author never assigned away his copyrights.
Would NEVER do that.
Author revokes license from 4+4channer.
4+4channer says "no you can't" as if Author doesn't own his own code.
4+4channer uploads, modifies, distributes code after having licensed revoked. 4+4channer also impersonates Author by using Author's pen-name.
Author informs 4+4channer again that his license is revoked.
Author demands he take it down
4+4channer says "no, I printed out license and every time I look at it I get a new one"
Author explains that the license comes from him, not a piece of paper that is simply the memorandum.
Author files DMCA /takedown/
Author also uploads information to his long-held accounts where the original software can be downloaded explaining that 4+4channer's license has been revoked. This allows others to verify that Author is Author and he has indeed revoked 4+4channer's license.

Author is Author.
Gave some contact info.
Explained why the 4+4channer was infringing.
Swears to the correctness of the info.
Signs with "mark" (penname), electronically.

All correct.
What problem do you have you fucking piece of filth?

Sorry, I own nothing myself
t. Neet Lawyer.

Try again piece of shit.
But if I need them, I will have attorneys.

Attached: Bh1Y.gif (500x357, 761K)

>Being embarrassed about fighting the good fight
I am correct on the law anyway :)
Go talk to Mr Rosen or David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School, specifically about US law.

(Maybe you'll get silence from Rosen these days on it...)

This. OP is a massive faggot.

Anyone wish to tell the lulz.com editor.

We have a dmca takedown now.

Ball is moved forward.

GPL license has been rescinded from a gratis licensee.

Got any legal arguments, shit for brains?

Attached: lainchan.jpg (1024x768, 96K)

Good, one step at a time.

who cares

>you'll never eat and chat with lain
why live

Attached: 1361216167058.jpg (854x859, 147K)

Attached: 1529082287552.png (620x916, 257K)

lain is omnipotent user, she's with you every time you take a bite.