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.

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

Other urls found in this thread:

scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163
amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17776182574171214893&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17776182574171214893&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p1379
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>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)

> 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.

>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.

> >
> > 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.


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.


>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.

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.

>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 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 promissory 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.



>ITT: Redditors with Reddit spacing pretend they are lawyers who know anything about copyright law.
scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237

Read up.

Attached: Sakurafish.jpg (600x600, 39K)

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

GPL n shiet, na sayin yo?

.: The GPL is revocable.

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

GPL

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

i wanna fuck the doll

Visiting Jow Forums NEETS: Thoughts on wageslaves threatening to "get fired" or "blackball from industry" any FOSS programmer who withdraws their code via license recission?

The wageslaves have allready threatened to get your NEET lawyer (and programmer) here disbarred for telling you the truth about licenses that are not backed by anything on the takers end...

Remeber: I do it for free

Attached: cirno.gif (500x281, 1.46M)

Surely you mean marry her (old style where you are the master and can have as many females as you wish). One of her charms is she never gets old.

One of the curses of the modern ages is women rule over us and only allow us to have old women.

>3 posters
OH NONONO

Post more pictures of her to this thread. That's an equally good contribution to this thread and on-topic as eternally-youthful-beings are technology.

Also it's been months and there have been no valid counter arguments to "GPL is revocable".

Post more doll. Contribute to thread. Living dolls who never age are /technology/

GPL, na sayin?

From pol:
>
>The fsf copyright transfer is the sketchiest thing about it. It creates a single point of failure. All works of man are corrupted by time. Someday the fsf will be indistguishable from MS or google. Better to have copyrights distributed.

>can you explain it in a few sentences as you would to an idiot

"You get what you pay for".

How's the schizophrenia treating you?

Attached: 1556702847773.png (645x795, 99K)

>Have no legal arguments, resort to libel.

Answer me this (you won't), are David McGowan, Lawrence Rosen, and Sapnar Kumar suffering from schizophrenia?

>scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
>amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
>papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237

I don't give a shit if they're revocable or not. I don't respect copyright either way. All software is public domain as far as I'm concerned.

Attached: illusorypromise.png (640x640, 287K)

>I do not give a shit about the law.
A far more respectable position than "I respect the law, except for that part about contracts requiring valid bargained for consideration to be enforcable by the parties, that part... na, I don't need to have paid you SHIT. You, MMMALLLEEEEEEEEEE OWE ME EVERYTHING FOR FREE. I AM WOMAN AND WILL COC YOU. and that means ... I effectively own your copyrights (the part about control of distribution, creation of derivative works, etc)".

There's no obligation that the person keep their work under a particular license indefinitely but that doesn't mean they can arbitrarily revoke the license from previous works that were released under the license. As long as the users are complying with the license you cannot do anything to prevent them from using the code.

No consideration, no contract, the copyright holder can revoke.


>scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
>amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
>papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237

Yes they can. A license that is not part of a licensing contract is revocable by the copyright owner at his will, for any or no reason.

The only thing that protects a licensee's rights is the existence of a contract. No consideration, no contract.

"I will not violate your copyright" is not valid consideration, as it is a pre-existing duty.

Attached: preexistingduty.png (640x640, 571K)

When you provide a work under a license you were not forced or coerced into using the license. You contracted out your work completely voluntarily of your own free will. It's no one's fault except your own if you didn't actually agree with the license. Free software licenses are designed to be irrevocable as long as the end users do not violate the licensing conditions themselves. You're still free to stop hosting any copies of your software under a free software license, however you cannot stop other people from hosting free versions.

let me just say that im absolutely grateful that linus adopted the tranny's coc, the amount of butthurt and tears that ensue is unprecedented, case in point, the loser behind these threads: mikeeusa

By law the rights one has to anothers work, by default, are: nothing. You cannot modify the work, you cannot distribute the work, you cannot make derivative works of the work, you cannot copy the work.

You have a pre-existing legal duty to obey copyright law.

The owner of the work then grants you permission to: modify the work, distribute the work, create derivatives based on the work, distribute derivative works based on the work.

He is not agreeing to any contract with you. He is stating how he will allow you to use his property.

You "agreeing" to abide by his instructions regarding his property is not "consideration" as it is a per-existing legal duty if you want to use/modify/distribute the work at all.

See the images: Or read:

>let me just say that im absolutely grateful that linus adopted the tranny's coc, the amount of butthurt and tears that ensue is unprecedented, case in point, the loser behind these threads: mikeeusa

I'm a licensed attorney, what are you?

>By law the rights one has to anothers work, by default, are: nothing.
And then you license it out and it becomes: something. You gave away your rights. That's how copyrights work.

im the president of the united states

I'm the Prince of Nigeria

>from pol
Go back and stay there.

>>The fsf copyright transfer is the sketchiest thing about it.
It's not sketchy at all if you can think for yourself for a moment. Why would the FSF be enforcing licenses on works that they are not the holder of? You as the holder of those works has the responsibility to enforce your copyright.

Attached: gplinfo.png (640x640, 90K)

>And then you license it out and it becomes: something.
The licensee is getting something (permission) for nothing, there is no contract.

>You gave away your rights.
Nope. Permisson to use/distribute/modify/make-derivatives is not transfer. When I allow you to use my lawnmower for free, I am not giving you my lawnmower. I can rescind your license to use my lawnmower at any time.

>That's how copyrights work.
You're thinking of exclusive licenses, copyright transfers (like the FSF requires), and dedications to the Public Domain , try again.

>hurr durr u cant be lawuir, das unpossible

Just because you cannot achieve anything in your life, doesn't make that true for all of us.

I am a programmer, a 3d model artist, a texture artist, a pixel artist, a 3d game architect (maps), a musician.

And.

A licensed attorney.

And I'm telling you that the GPL is revocable when given for free.

Illusory Promise and Pre-existing Duty rule preclude the existence of valid consideration.

You're a fucking idiot.

They require it so the author can't revoke the license out from under them and others.

You simply accept the gloss you're told.

The FSF could easily finance and dedicate lawyers to cases it was concerned about without owning the copyright, provided the copyright owner wanted to sue.

seething

you better watch what you say to me boyo, one word to the right people and i can get them to kick down your doors and go to town on your ass

Notice how everyone ignores these published attorneys who all find that the GPL is revocable:


>scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
>amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
>papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237

No mention at all. Just attacks against your host here. "HURRR DURR U CANT BE LAWER BECAUSE WE ARENT!"


"HURR DURR PREEXISTING DUTY RULE DOESNT EXIST, IM GOING TO IGNORE YOU BRINGING IT UP! AS IF YOU DIDNT! HURR DURRR ILLUSARY PROMISES UNENFORCABLE? HURRR IM GOING TO IGNORE THAT TOO!!!"

"HURRR DURRR ME PROMISING NOT TO VIOLATE YOUR COPYRIGHT IS VALID CONSIDERATION HURRRR!"

I know for a fact that some loser who spams the internet with the same bullshit day in and day out can't be a licensed attorney

seething

>boyo
Glad you acknowlege me as a stand up guy.

I do not give a fuck who you send. I have nothing to live for, I do not care if I die.

You banned marrying cute young girls before I was born.

(YHWH allows marrying young girls: Devarim chapter 22, verse 28: (Na'ar (hebrew masoretic text), Padia (greek septuagint), Puella (latin vulgate))

The GPL is revocable.

Go and FUCK yourself.

suiseiseki is best doll
...do people no realize this? If you didn't sign a legally-binding contract, you probably aren't under a legally-binding contract?

Attached: 1437860016780.jpg (511x469, 42K)

>worshipping jewish gods

>The licensee is getting something (permission) for nothing
The licensor licensed the work out themselves. Don't fucking do that if you think you should be compensated. You can work for money and make free software but if you work for free and make free software that's your thing.

>Nope. Permisson to use/distribute/modify/make-derivatives is not transfer.
Correct its all the permissions required to use the work without the explicit ownership of the work. However the license stipulates that the licensee is entitled to those permissions and they're irrevocable rights as long as they abide by the license terms.

>I know for a fact that some loser who spams the internet with the same bullshit day in and day out can't be a licensed attorney

One has nothing to do with the other.
Shows how well you "into" logic (something needed for the practice of law)

>bullshit
Are you saying that David McGowan, Lawrence Rosen, and Sapnar Kumar, all were spreading bullshit and lies?

The problem is not OP - it's people replying and keeping this thread alive.
Let's move along to a better thread.

Attached: 1554915376107.jpg (612x612, 161K)

>people replying
They come from the same place as the OP.

Wrongo. Without paying consideration, the free licensee cannot hold the licensor to any promise not to revoke.

See: Pre-existing duty rule, and Illusory Promise

The licensee only has license to use the work so-long as the licensor does not revoke that permission. Since the licensee has not secured his interest, he has no defense at law to revocation.

>Three attorneys said the GPL is revocable thus it's revocable.
>Three PhDs said the Holocaust didn't happen thus it didn't.

I came from Jow Forums

>a muslim apologist, a kike and a street shitter
sorry but you're gonna have to do better than that

>suiseiseki is best doll
She's kinda mean to the MC, I like her alot ofcourse, but I think her sister abit more.

>...do people no realize this? If you didn't sign a legally-binding contract, you probably aren't under a legally-binding contract?

They will simply ignore you. They want something for nothing. Basically they want to commit the tort of conversion against the copyright owner and have the courts agree to that.

The muslims follow the actual laws of YHWH much closer than anyone else on earth, they deviate by having the punishment for theft as slicing limbs off, when it should be restitution plus interest (steal a (capital) good such as a cow, pay 2 cows when caught).

The muslims allow child brides, which YHWH explicitly allows, many of them also implemented the law where if a man rapes a young girl who has not been betrothed to another yet, the man marries the girl and pays the father. America got these laws removed from both muslim middle east countries and Catholic latin american countries in the 2000s.

All true

>"quote"
>Let's libel David McGowan, Lawrence Rosen, and Sapnar Kumar now!

>>scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
>>amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
>>papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237

Those three attorneys are correct on the GPL. No one has ever been able to come up with a paper refuting them. (And no the couched words at the FSF do not count: logically those "updates" don't actually say anything, but a non-lawyer wouldn't understand). Eben Moglen, over half a year ago claimed he would write a paper showing the GPL irrevocable (see lkml mailing list)... we're still waiting.

Thought he was smart.

Then:
Ignored the responses.

Hmm.

Another ping for you. Thanks for pointing this out.

tred

>when it should be restitution plus interest (steal a (capital) good such as a cow, pay 2 cows when caught).
Typical cancerous jew thinking.

Oh I stole your car, but here's two cars now. Totally not stolen either. Oh what's that? Your wife died because you didn't have a car to get her to the hospital? How unfortunate. Well at least you have two cars, enjoy.

Get in the oven, kike.

It doesn't matter. You would need a someone with enough code in the kernel to make it a pain if they withdrew their license. That person would also need to have the balls to do it. If there were people like that in the Linux project, there wouldn't be a CoC anyway. You come here telling a tibetan throat singing forum that they can withdraw the throat singers can withdraw their GPL code. Nigger who releases throat singing recordings under the GPL?

Attached: 1556843548401.png (615x611, 188K)

It doesn't matter because the license is irrevocable.

If you want to be able to change the license don't use one that plainly states that it is irrevocable.

>expecting anyone to waste their brain cells reading poorly made copy pasta on top of anime girls
kek you're even stupider than i thought

>license is irrevocable
I guess we'll never know. The $oy has made people too oversocialized to try.

No one has tried because it's career suicide.

Tell us why the license is irrevocable. What binds the copyright owner to keep his word?

Tell us.

We've been waiting.

Any "replacement code" of any significantly useful portion would likely be derivative and thus infringing as-well, post-revocation.

There's alot of eyes on Jow Forums so this is a good place to post.

Cows reproduce. By the time they found the stolen cow you've made a few more from the stolen one + your bull (you did steal a bull too, right?). Everyone profits. Everyone's happy.

And then you go marry a little girl or 2 as YHWH allows aswell.

They were made in reponse to But you knew that already.

You do not have any valid legal arguments against mine, so you just make fun.

The GPL is revocable.

>No one has tried because it's career suicide.

White men are faggots: easily broken. They refuse to band together into something that bends but never breaks also. They are complete fools and worship "MUH WHITE WUMAN!".

They even let their right to marry cute young virgin girls evaporate.

Even if the right is intact nobody's going to marry a bitter loser like you.

>you better watch what you say to me boyo, one word to the right people and i can get them to kick down your doors and go to town on your ass

Legal reasoning defeated (Thank you Illusory Promise, and Pre Existing Duty Rule), resorts to terroristic threats.

The GPL is revocable.

The license itself that you assigned to the work yourself.

I don't know if the GPL has been tried in American courts but it has been tried in European courts and upheld. Smaller more vague free software licenses have been upheld in American courts though.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17776182574171214893&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

>The District Court held that the open source Artistic License created an "intentionally broad" nonexclusive license which was unlimited in scope and thus did not create liability for copyright infringement. The District Court reasoned:
>The plaintiff claimed that by modifying the software the defendant had exceeded the scope of the license and therefore infringed the copyright. Here, however, the JMRI Project license provides that a user may copy the files verbatim or may otherwise modify the material in any way, including as part of a larger, possibly commercial software distribution. The license explicitly gives the users of the material, any member of the public, "the right to use and distribute the [material] in a more-or-less customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable accommodations." The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally broad. The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants' alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.

the president of the united states can't be a terrorist

I'm a lawyer, over 6ft tall, blond hair, blue eyes, less than 190lbs, and a musician, plenty of girls would marry me.

The Prez of the United States knows that nothing gets you nothing, and wouldn't be arguing against "GPL is revocable"

Notably it brings up the argument about compensation and argues that the licensor would be compensated in other ways

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17776182574171214893&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p1379

>Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source projects. Improvement to a product can come rapidly and free of charge from an expert not even known to the copyright holder. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the economic motives inherent in public licenses, even where profit is not immediate. See Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1200 (11th Cir.2001) (Program creator "derived value from the distribution [under a public license] because he was able to improve his Software based on suggestions sent by end-users.... It is logical that as the Software improved, more end-users used his Software, thereby increasing [the programmer's] recognition in his profession and the likelihood that the Software would be improved even further.").

Keep telling yourself that

Attached: 1545665608512.jpg (290x290, 46K)

>Hasn't read Devarim chapter 22 verse 28 in hebrew, greek, and latin.

The mirror and my attorney secure pass tells me that, in vivid detail.

You people really think it's that hard to stay under 190lbs? Just work out. Don't you have a gym at home?

im not arguing against anything, merely making fun of a self proclaimed attorney on 4channel

Easy with the projection there, fatso.

This is a discussion of US law only.

German contract law is based on promises, and doesn't require consideration.

Very different from US law.

Please stop trying to muddy the waters.

>it's revocable! just buy my book and trust me!
>what do you mean prove it in court? fucking Jow Forums virgin losers

Sorry enemy, not fat.

However if your point is
>170lbs, 3pct bodyfat, ottermode or bust

Well that's a valid view.

> However, where no such relationship exists, no such protection is apparent.
Lel no. Are you in the USA or something?

Only that place comes to mind where almost all laws were turned into a bloody mess in practice.

Literally from a United States Federal District Court.

>it's revocable! just buy my book and trust me!
All these are available free online. But yes, an attorney's word is worth more than some lay idiot like yourself.

>what do you mean prove it in court? fucking Jow Forums virgin losers
It's the linux copyright holders who are the "virgin losers" here, since they're too afraid to rescind because
>will be blackballed by industry, oh no, how will I ever afford my adult white wuuuman wife that hates me!

These people have no prospect of a young girl bride (not allowed, YAY WHITE MAN! PROWERFUL! HOLDING IT DOWN! FIGHTING AGAINST YHWH! BEING HERETICS OF THE SAME STRIPE AS THE CATHARS!), yet they fear being fired for exercising their legal rights against their sworn eternal enemies regarding their own property.
>scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
>amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
>papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237

Why is the license revocable according to you anyhow?

With the GPL, you also promised any Germans that get their hands on it at the same time, and you gave them the right to sublicense.

If they make use of this legal right, the USA is probably supposed to accept it under some copyright convention, right?

Yes, I am a US attorney, I am talking about US law.

Oh the 9th circuit non-binding dicta where they wax poetically in the middle of the decision for a page an a half about how they love linux, and then rule exactly the opposite in the actual opinion. Yea I've read that case.. and the thing is... I'm an attorney so I know what non-binding dicta is. And you don't, because you're not.

Still doesn't matter: that "consideration" wasn't bargained for. You giving something that that someone doesn't want and didn't ask for doesn't suffice as consideration.

PS: The license has specific conditions in which it is revoked... I do not mean these. I mean one-sided withdrawing of the license.

Why is THAT possible and not some entrapment of sorts?

>Why is the license revocable according to you anyhow?
I explained this 1000 times already, read the thread.

Or look at these 2 pictures I made in response to some retard's image macro: >With the GPL, you also promised any Germans that get their hands on it at the same time, and you gave them the right to sublicense.
>If they make use of this legal right, the USA is probably supposed to accept it under some copyright convention, right?

No, the Berne Convention doesn't apply to contracting law. It has you accept foreign copyrights, and at times deal with them in the way they would have been delt with in their countries of origin (this part is abit complex).

US copyrights, in the US, get treated fully under US law, ofcourse.