Date Thu, 09 May 2019 15:16:31 +0000 From informator@redchan ... Subject Regarding threats to "CoC" you. - You do have recourse - license rescission Dear Poul-Henning "UNIX guru at large" Kamp;

Many have noticed threats made against you recently to seek your

ejectment from the FreeBSD project as retaliation for statements

you made protesting the ceaseless and ever on-going slaughter of

innocents; A transparent attempt to censor your political speech,

if there ever was one.



I am forwarding this message below to you because if such is

attempted, you do have recourse: and that is the rescind the

gratis license you have granted regarding the use of your works of

authorship. You may rescind these grantsfrom your attackers, those

who fail to defend your right to free speech, from the project

itself, or from all free-takers (if such is your wish).



Remeber: A non-exclusive license grant is not a transfer of

copyright, and such a license absent bargained-for consideration

is just that: a license (permission); it is not a contract and does not

bind the /grantor/ to any terms. It can be revocated at

any time, for any or no reason.



This applies to all the "classic" free licenses, from the MIT

license, to the BSD license, to the GPL.



-------

The proclamations made by some as to the irrevocability of freely given

non-exclusive licenses 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: you _C_A_N_ revoke GPL/BSD/MIT/etc 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.

(And you should do so if you are attacked by those free-takers)



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)

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





Sincerely;

Pro-Bono Attorney



(Note: all discussion herein is in relevance to US law)



