To: Andrew Sampson: Rights granted by the GPL _can_ be "retroactively" retracted. Yes I am a lawyer

lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/7/1312

Dear Andrew Sampson;
The proclamations given in the thread: github.com/Codeusa/Borderless-Gaming/issues/312 are incorrect.

If the non-exclusive licensee did not pay the copyright holder consideration for receipt of the permissions given regarding the copyrighted work, the copyright holder can freely rescind those permissions _AT_ANY_TIME_ .

The reasons are as follows: For the licensee to "hold" the licensor to any promise regarding when and how rescission is to take place there must be a contract between the two. A contract requires valid bargained-for consideration. Otherwise any "promise" made is an Illusory Promise (unenforceable).

"Nothing" is not valid consideration.

Obeying a pre-existing duty is not valid consideration.

The licensee has a pre-existing duty to obey copyright law, without permission from the copyright holder he may not use/modify/make-derivative-works-of/distribute/distribute-derivative-works-of. That permission is what he is attempting to "contract" for. Saying one will follow those permissions is not valid consideration to "pay" for those permissions. Promising not to violate the copyright holder's rights -by promising to only use the copyrighted works as freely permitted by the copyright holder, is not valid consideration as that is a pre-existing duty.

Yes: Codeusa: you _C_A_N_ revoke GPL permissions from free-takers at your will. And you should do so if that is needed for your livelihood to succeed.

You should do so if it is simply your want.

Do not the pennyless leaches intimidate you from making your own decisions regarding your work of authorship. They gave you nothing, you asked for nothing, they have nothing. Remember: a non-exclusive license is not a transfer, it is permission. Permission that can be ended at any time unless there exists an attached interest (ie: the other side payed you for a license contract)

Attached: stavechurch.jpg (800x1250, 364K)

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/Codeusa/Borderless-Gaming/issues/312
github.com/Codeusa/Borderless-Gaming/issues/441
github.com/Codeusa/Borderless-Gaming/issues/442
encyclopediadramatica.rs/MikeeUSA
moddb.com/games/chaosesqueanthology
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Also Remember: The FSF has _always_ (and still does) required Copyright Transfers before it would accept a contribution.

And yes: I am a lawyer.

Of course: consult your local copyright attorney. Strategy is important in these cases. The free-loaders feel they have the 9th circuit judges in the bag, and that the 9th circuit will invalidate the concept of consideration if needed to protect the California tech industry (so revoke from those outside the 9th circuit first).


For easy to read by lay-people discussions on this topic:
lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/4/334
lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/3/698

For legal articles and treatises that agree: no consideration from GPL free-taker, no contract, revocable by the copyright holder:
scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237


Note: I tried to inform you of this on your github account but was immediatly "hell banned" by github.


Sincerely;
Pro-Bono Attorney

Tl;dr?

If you use free (as in you paid no money) software then the license can be changed without your permission.

Freeloaders shouted down author who decided to rescind the free licenses: github.com/Codeusa/Borderless-Gaming/issues/312

Author believed the freeloaders. The freeloaders are wrong. Had to right the wrong by informing Author of how the law actually works in this instance, and to stand strong, look them in the eye: and do as he initially did: RESCIND.

Got hell banned by github immediately:
github.com/Codeusa/Borderless-Gaming/issues/441
github.com/Codeusa/Borderless-Gaming/issues/442
. Had to send him an email instead.

If anyone you know Andrew Sampson of rainway.io (he's on linked in). Please inform him of the email, just so he gets the information. His email is his first name at his company.

He should know his legal rights and not let others direct him.

Is this the ones where leftists ousted some long time dev and so he wanted his years of work out of their hands?

do we need this schizo thread every day?

>OP is this schizo
encyclopediadramatica.rs/MikeeUSA

Just sage, report and hide. His last thread was something like 100 replies and 9 IPs.

Attached: no replies.png (848x630, 101K)

Seems this dev just decided he wanted to revoke the free licenses and re-release under a different license (MPL it seems). It is his right to do so.

He was shouted down, and not having legal training, acquiesced to the noise.

He has now been (at least attempted) informed him he can lawfully revoke at any time.

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

These guys schizo's too?

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

>בּוֹגֵד
RMS is the traitor, he recently decided to "rethink" past positions he had (on say a topic related to men marrying cute young girls).

So I have also done some "rethinking".

When I joined the free software movement men were firmly in control and the programmers were respected.

From 2007 to 2009 this was changed: women were now to be the gate keepers (women who did nothing); and the male programmers who created the corpus on which free-software rested: the servants.

That is firmly entrenched now.

There is a time for mutual cooperation.
There is a time for a cessation of such.

When one is a slave again, the time has long been due.

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

I've essentially been at war with the free software "community" organizers for over a decade. I think it's long overdue to recognize me as an enemy.

Call me traitor all you want. When you suborn the men like they were dogs, when they bring you your bread, and uplift the women to rule over them, I _am_ an enemy of yours (YHWH willing).

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

GNU is finished and bankrupt

>GNU is finished and bankrupt
Its always been bankrupt.
More recently it's decided to be morally bankrupt as-well by doing nothing as the actual men who create that which it is built upon get attacked by do-nothing women.

I'm a licensed attorney and a programmer. You libel me as a schizo every time I post, that is your label for "people I disagree with".
moddb.com/games/chaosesqueanthology

Just added extended magazines for the StyrAug. What have you done this week?

(4 to 6 million dollars worth of code contributions to that project from me over the last decade)

What about customary law? Serious question I'm not a lawyer.

>Just added extended magazines for the StyrAug. What have you done this week?
Well I'm struggling to motivate myself to do the most basic tasks like eating so I actually take 10h per day to eat, clean and wash myself. There's not that much time left to do anything big.

In the realm of copyright, if you're assigning rights over, you need a writing stating that generally.

"It is our custom that when you grant a non-exclusive license, what you're really doing is transferring rights like in an exclusive license" won't cut it.

Non-exclusive licenses can be granted without a writing (if the licensee can prove it..), but without consideration those are revocable.

>Well I'm struggling to motivate myself to do the most basic tasks like eating so I actually take 10h per day to eat, clean and wash myself. There's not that much time left to do anything big.

I have no real idea why I feel internally compelled to endlessly work on this open-source game, I just sometimes feel I need to get some features done. I can't really help you with motivation. I just get more ancy day by day if I'm not increasing my legend.

Well this is a pretty entertaining thread, even if it doesn't have anything of substance

>In the realm of copyright, if you're assigning rights over, you need a writing stating that generally.
Isn't the old license basically a writing giving me certain rights?

No, it's only granting you permission.
It has not transfered any rights to you.

If you want to "lock in" those permissions and turn them into "rights" that you can enforce against the copyright holder you have to have a contract with the copyright holder: which means you must pay him what he asks, and that must be something.

For easy to read by lay-people discussions on this topic:
lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/4/334
lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/3/698

An EULA lets the company do whatever they want with you, user. They just need to tie the EULA behind a service they can claim you haven't paid for. That's why running your own software on a Sony console can get you sued even though Sony offered the PS3 as a Linux server, because the EULA updates through the PSN service.

lol mikee did you make that tower map for classic nexuiz?
that theme was catchy af