Free Licenses are revocable by the Copyright holder

A defense against license revocation is the existence of a contractual relationship between the copyright-owner and the licensee.

However, where no such relationship exists, no such protection is apparent.

Obeying a preexisting legal duty (such as to not commit copyright infringement by using/modifying/etc a work without permission) is insufficient to create a contract.

Illusory promises are not binding upon the grantor.

For those who have chosen to not pay the Grantor of a "G" "P" "L" (GPL) license, the license can be revocated at the will of the copyright owner.

""retroactively""

Remeber: non-exclusive licenses do not transfer any rights. Only permissions (license), which can be revoked, and without a contractual agreement such revocations do not give rise to damages against the Copyright owner.

Nothing gets you nothing.

>WE'RE GOING TO DISBAR YOU, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE LICENSED FOR LONG.

Go fuck yourself, enemy.

warosu.org/g/thread/S70741415

Attached: yotsugi.jpg (300x168, 10K)

Other urls found in this thread:

scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163
warosu.org/g/thread/S70741415
youtube.com/watch?v=OJbKvvf4B_s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Not true, you enter an implicit contract the moment you start using a product with a free license. Note that I've said product, not service. Services can very much update their terms and conditions, and frequently do so. Equally the creator can change the conditions and licensing on updates or new versions of a product. You can't be revoked a free license for a product you're already using though.

Incorrect, where the user has paid no fee (or service or action) to the copyright holder, there is nothing to support the existance of a contract where the user could hold the copyrightholder to the "terms". (IE: the free-taker attacking the hand that fed him)

The user MUST obey the license, but that is due to copyright law, not contracting law.

A court, may, at it's discretion, choose not to enforce the Copyright Holder's lawful rights under equity, of course, and may indeed do so for a lay user (a consumer). The use allowance would likely only extend to actual use of the software: not modification and public distribution.

(So-far, one must note, the courts only did so for commercial software for paying customers, some 1990s cases)

The Copyright Holder can prevent the use of its code in new versions of the product, aswell as new distribution of "old" versions of it's code (IE: pressing new CDs containing the now-withdrawn code (or new-downloads of said withdrawn code)). Shops that have old linux distributions with stock of old linux CDs would likely be-able to still sell that stock, however modification and distribution of the withdrawn code would not be allowed by the user of such.

The Copyright owner has not transfered his interest in controlling the distribution and modification, etc of his work. He has simply allowed it to occur, free of charge. That can end at any time.

The FSF requires a transfer of copyright for this very reason, regardless of what other surface excuses they give as excuses (which almost seem like fraud-in-the-inducement, honestly)

Attached: Ononoki.Yotsugi.full.jpg (500x707, 271K)

> >
> > Has GNU addressed the possibility of that, and what is their plan for dealing with it?

>
>GNU requires contributors to assign the FSF as the copyright holder.

> Did you go to a legitimate law school or did you study law all by yourself?
Legitimate law school. My professors from the school agree that free licenses do not create a contract, and the license is revocable: They take it as a matter of course: it's obvious on it's face.


>That's not how licensing works, you fucking idiot.
Yes it is. You are thinking of commercial copyright license contracts, which is what your handbooks inform you on. The entirety of the "irrevocability" argument you find therein is the existance of a contract between the grantor and the licensee, which binds both to the terms. With free licenses no such contract exists, due to a lack of consideration on the part of the licensee; and no: "I promise to not violate your copyright" is not valid consideration as it is a pre-existing legal duty.

Other lawyers who have expressed similar opinions are David McGowan and Lawrence Rosen, in addition to Kumar (author to a rather famous paper on the subject).

Lawyers who have concretely stated otherwise are:
No one. The best you get is a highly couched statement of dissimulation from one Red Hat attorney who was hired by the Software Freedom Conservancy.

More recently the Male Red Hat attorneys put out a statement that tacitly acknowleges revocation as a danger from "judgement proof" individuals (IE: pennyless, unemployed, NEETs, who can't be fired from the job they don't have in retaliation, and hold no recoverables (thus the threat of protacted litigation and legal fees during holds no sway over them)), individuals who happen to make up a sizeable portion of Open Source copyright holders.

>Oh man, I'd fuck Yotsugi.

>cute doll

Correct

>why make this thread every day?
Because you do not like this thread yet.

Attached: lain321565.jpg (184x184, 5K)

Attached: Screenshot_20190430-231558.png (2048x520, 120K)

Obviously?

Does this mean Linux won't be free anymore?

Man I wanna fuck yotsugi.

>More recently the Male Red Hat attorneys put out a statement that tacitly acknowleges revocation as a danger from "judgement proof" individuals (IE: pennyless, unemployed, NEETs, who can't be fired from the job they don't have in retaliation, and hold no recoverables (thus the threat of protacted litigation and legal fees during holds no sway over them)), individuals who happen to make up a sizeable portion of Open Source copyright holders.
>Linux programmers being NEETs is actually an airtight defense of the GPL because lawfare doesn't work on them
This is fucking beautiful.

Attached: 82311.jpg (600x337, 27K)

Go back to 8ch

Hm.
There's this, which strongly supports the possibility of revocation, with some strong reasoning.
scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
There's
groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163
which states no, it is irrevocable. I'm a bit iffy on this one.

I'm still tempted to claim that this is FUD, and I'd need to see some actual cases to support revocability.

>Artifex!
In Artifex v. Hancom the court doesn't even correctly identify the GPL. It misconstrues the preliminary ("pay us for commercial license or use the GPL") writing (offer to do business) + the GPL as "The GPL".

Additionally in Artifex the situation is where the licensee decided NOT to pay and NOT to obey the GPL gratis license either, thus Violating the Contract the court construed created by the licensee "accepting" the preliminary writing / offer to do buisness ("Pay us OR GPL") (licensee chose : NEITHER! But I still USE! HAHA!").

The remedy is EITHER a breach of contract remedy (for not paying under the preliminary license) OR (and NOT BOTH) Copyright Damages for violating the license.

Copyright holder was given the option to decide.

This have little relevance to where a Copyright Owner allows gratis (free) licensees and then chose to withdraw/cancel/rescind the gratis licenses.

Regardless of what smoke FSF / SFLC and corp wish to blow up your ass.

Attached: squidgirl.jpg (480x360, 12K)

This is why you either do not accept contributions at all or use a CLA.

>I'm still tempted to claim that this is FUD, and I'd need to see some actual cases to support revocability.

Since there's no money in it, few lawyers will take a case involving free software. The programmers don't even register their copyrights, so when a violation occurs, even if you register later, if a same or similar violation is what you're suing on at a later date you STILL cannot get attorney's fees, nor statutory damages.

Only damages. And what are those? Zero dollars?

Unless a FOSSman wanted to fund the whole suit out of pocket, no one would take a case revolving around judgement-proof individuals and entities with no discoverable profits.

You'll notice the only suits on the matter have been where there has been some other agreement between the parties (for payment usually).

Exactly.

Which the FSF has _ALWAYS_ required.
It is linus that changed this tone, and linux did profit from it with much more programmers than it otherwise would have had.

Any statement by the FSF etc to the contrary is simply trying to give free cover to linux etc for a problem the FSF didn't actually create. Very generous of them, but not legally accurate.

The groklaw one was written by a paralegal.
(who perhaps just flipped to the seemingly relevant two pages in Copyright Litigation Handbook and didn't notice the key sentence noting that the issue at hand was the existence of a copyright licensing contract which upheld the terms for both parties, something non existent in free licenses)
The duke one by an attorney.

Googling "GPL as a contract" seems to indicate with Hancom against the Ghostscript devs that the GPL is in fact a contract and not just a license.
Now, I'm not 100% sure of the details -- you can buy a commercial Ghostscript license, for example, and I'm sure that plays into it.

They settled, so this doesn't really help much in figuring out the details, either.

IIRC Ghostscript and mupdf aren't just GPL but AGPLv3+, making the FOSS versions effectively impossible to use in business.

Actually what happens when you have an open source project in which you state that you do not accept contribution without the cla being accepted but someone still posts some code on the issues-page?
Can you use that code and state it is yours now or are you now required to implement the same functionality with different code?
Can the other person sue you or do anything against it?
Someone could destroy any project that requires a cla by doing this. They would have a hard time implementing something in different ways if that would be the case. This example is for like 20 lines of code each.

>Linux programmers being NEETs is actually an airtight defense of the GPL because lawfare doesn't work on them
But the statement you're quoting says the exact opposite, they are danger to the GPL as they're not afraid to revoke the license since they have nothing to lose anyway.

Attached: 1556702851584.png (645x795, 99K)

It never was. Linux contains proprietary code blocks, firmware and device drivers.

I'm publishing all my software sources without any license. This way it's implicitly protected by copyright.
You are allowed to:
>modify software for your own personal use
>back up, compile, and run the software
>patch the software
>share patches under ANY license
>distribute the exact copy
Freetards unironically categorize this as non-free because you are not allowed to distribute modified version. Well guess what, you can distribute exact copy and patches along-side.
0 lines of license. Minimal mental gymnastics. Nothing to revoke.

That means nothing. many clauses of proprietary licenses are unenforceable and can be ignored if they are in conflict with law. Similar can happen in open source license.

EULAs have no ground in EU law for example. So this is just that. Bunch of words that have no effect.

>warosu.org/g/thread/S70741415
The source is another Jow Forums thread with no further references.

Attached: skeptical.jpg (601x577, 57K)

That's not a source, just an older thread.

The source is you going to law school and learning what does and does not bind a party.

Or you could read Lawrence Rosen's "Opensource Licensing", or David McGowan's paper, or Kumar's paper, there are alot.

Free gets you nothing against the grantor of the license.

>share patches under ANY license

Ah, but that is not always so: If a patch is a non-separable derivative work, you the author of the original work have a say.

And if you tell someone "you may share patches under any license", that, infact, is the license you have granted them.

Just as you could let someone use your lawnmower for whatever tasks you decide (giving the person license).

License is simply permission. People confuse them with "license contracts", which come into existence when someone gives something to you for your permission, which you bargained with them for.

Either way: The guy getting the permission from you, verses the guy getting the permission from someone putting their software out under the GPL have the same rights against the copyright holder: none.

Nothing gets the licensee nothing. Free gets the licensee exactly what he paid for vs the owner of the work.

If the shared patch is a non-separable derivative work, you can revoke your permission for them to distribute it whenever you wish.

(Since they didn't pay you consideration to secure that "right")

The GPL, is revocable

Attached: yotsubadoll.jpg (194x260, 6K)

if you can create patch(1) diff then it's separable
>And if you tell someone "you may share patches under any license", that, infact, is the license you have granted them.
no, it's their right protected by copyright law regardless of whether I tell them or not. there is not permission I give them.

i don't give a shit i'm gangsta'

What is the problem? Just add a revocation clause to the license and move on. Microsoft does it and they are happy.

>GPL
>Open Source

>if you can create patch(1) diff then it's separable
No, that isn't the test. It is if it can stand alone, or be used as part of multiple "products".

Example: GRSecurity kernel patch is a patch, however it completely relies on the existence of the kernel it is patching to be of any use or value, additionally it was built "from" the kernel.

That's a non-separable patch.

Counter-example: The nvidia driver:
That driver code can "plug in" to either the linux kernel "nvidia-stub" code or the Windows kernel code, or the FreeBSD code. Same code, can be joined with different products. Seperable.

It's all down to how one engineers the products.

Now the "stub" code that interacts with the actual driver, which is kernel-specific, that is non-separable, and as a non-separable derivative must be mindful of the permissions given by the Copyright Holder.

>What is the problem? Just add a revocation clause to the license and move on. Microsoft does it and they are happy.

Microsoft "has" to do that because it requires people to actually pay for it's products (thus a contract is formed as Microsoft sought that as consideration, and received it), thus the Courts decided that where there was a contract revocation was only by the clauses merged into the contract.

With free licenses there is no contract.

The linux programmers were seemingly quite upset about some new writing that has been placed along side their code. The "CoC", a transparent attempt to wrest dominion and control from them (dominion and control = Ownership), basically an attempt at conversion of their property.

The solution is simple: rescind from the free licensees attempting to bite the hand that fed them.

Attached: 1546325839308.jpg (373x448, 41K)

youtube.com/watch?v=OJbKvvf4B_s

Should linuxers revoke?

FUCKING THAT PASTA, WHY YOU DON'T GET OUT OF HERE AND EARN MILIONS DOING IT!!

Attached: 1534275150021.png (399x400, 13K)

FSF requires transfer of copyright to easily relicense the code. Given how many revisions GPL underwent, it's justified. Code obtained from FSF is under GPL in full force and FSF can't prohibit its distribution in any way at all, distribution is guaranteed by GPL.

So Microsoft had to do it because a license without a revocation clause is irrevocable?

No, they protect the GPL from corporate malfeasance via revocation.

pretty sad nobody answered this.

>The solution is simple: rescind from the free licensees attempting to bite the hand that fed them.
Just don't contribute to projects run by corporate dick suckers.

>copyright is real
kys and take your thought policing with you.

Promissory estoppel.

Also, the consideration here would be the right to work on the project, which is good and valuable because of the reputation, experience, etc. which comes from contributing code.

Thanks for playing, user.

The only thing i learned ITT is that astroturfing works. It's a nightmare.

GPL

Copyright owner already has the "right" to create his own code independently. He doesn't have to ask the FSF or SFLC to "allow" him to create a project.

>Promissory estoppel.

Promissory estopple is an equitable defense, used when a heir is promised land, then improves the land outlay of monies, and then the estate denies him title. In this area it's related to the ancient livery of seizin, and without reference to that would not have been accepted by the courts in the first place.

Another area it's used is when a worker would otherwise be dispossessed of his rightful renumeration because of some failure in contract formation, the courts sometimes use promissory estopple to get the promissor to not stiff the contract worker. Here it's similar to quantum meruit in a way, or quazi contact theories.

A third time it's used is when a father promises a daughter something, the courts felt bad for the daughter (a woman, duh) and estopped the father from not giving her money.

In the first and third case it involves a family member and a one to one promise from the estate holder. In the second case it involves a worker who did the work and was about to get screwed.

In no cases has it involved non-exclusive "promises" to random unidentified strangers involving software licenses.

I would never earn a dime from it. The best case scenario is that 2 trillion dollars worth of value vanishes from the economy with the revocation of the linux kernel permissions from the copyright holders.

Which they CAN do if they chose to.

>Actually what happens when you have an open source project in which you state that you do not accept contribution without the cla being accepted but someone still posts some code on the issues-page?

>Can you use that code and state it is yours now
No.

> or are you now required to implement the same functionality with different code?
Depends on if it is trivial or "the only way to do it" or not, and if you looked at the code (or if they can "prove" that you likely did etc)

>Can the other person sue you or do anything against it?
If they can prove you based your work of authorship on theirs, they have a case that it is derivative. One prong in the test is if you had access to the other work.


>Someone could destroy any project that requires a cla by doing this.
Such is one strategy, and could lead to litigation.

>They would have a hard time implementing something in different ways if that would be the case. This example is for like 20 lines of code each.
Such things would be less likely to be copyrightable if there is basically only one way, or one proper way, to do it.

Copyright is about authorship, not function.
If something is purely functional, the proper route for protection is patent, not copyright.

To discover if something is or not requires litigation, ofcourse.

I would never earn a dime from it. The best case scenario is that 2 trillion dollars worth of value vanishes from the economy with the revocation of the linux kernel permissions by the copyright holders.

Which they CAN do if they chose to.

I want everyone to understand that "promissory estopple" is the LAST port of call for a dying contract, and it is NOT a defense at law: it is a defense in equity.

Every time a delinquent apartment dweller gets thrown out of their apartment they claim "promissory estopple". The court might give them a few more months to pack their things.

When the other side rests their case on promessory estopple that means they have no case at law: they are simply going to beg the court "THIS IS NOT FAIR, PLEASE DO NOT ENFORCE THE LAWFUL RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST ME". It is at the courts discretion to enforce your rights or not, and since self-help is not allowed anymore in most cases, if the court won't help you you're not getting any help.

What the other side is saying here is that the court should just simply give you the apartment. That it is "fair" that they get to convert your property to their property, for nothing, because.

Since the other side is a bunch of "_women_" and "_supporters_of_women_" perhaps they have a super strong case that they should effectively own YOUR copyrights, MMMAALLLEESSS.

>Also, the consideration here would be the right to work on the project, which is good and valuable because of the reputation, experience, etc. which comes from contributing code.

Linus needed permission from nobody to contribute code to himself.

Consideration, to be valid, must be bargained-for consideration. Non-bargained for consideration is no consideration at all. Those copyright holders who licensed their patches under the GPL, did not necessarily seek fame, reputation, etc, and such was not promised by the linux project to those programmers in exchange for the licensing of the code. There was no exchange of bargained-for consideration.

>Thanks for playing, user.
Sorry snaky fuck, I've researched this far more than you, am an attorney, and can cite 3 other attorneys who have published papers and books recognizing that the GPL is revocable.

Attached: p1546935793361.png (1200x1200, 387K)

Name one thing bad about this, if it's actually real (like flat earth, etc).
>removes fags fron contributing
Thank you. Take your faggy code and leave.

can somebody explain what he meant by this without the legalese

fucking trumps shills
stop trying to destroy free software

Attached: joo ootko cpvammanen.gif (142x142, 10K)

MikeeUSA, you're not an attorney. You're a schizophrenic lolcow, making a fool of yourself on the internet for our amusement.