Date Fri, 03 May 2019 19:31:13 +0000 From mikeeusa@redchan ... Subject 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.



http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/70789199













---







> 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.















---







> 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)









---





>> 70752638

> 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.





>> 70752641

> 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.



>> 70753928

> Oh man, I'd fuck Yotsugi.



>> 70753918

> cute doll



Correct



>> 70753935

> why make this thread every day?

Because you do not like this thread yet.













---







>> 70762568

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

> CLA.

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.















---

















>> 70766437

> 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.













---















>> 70765621

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.















---













>> 70766513

> 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, anon.

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.

















---















>> 70791852

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 pre-existing legal duty if you want to

use/modify/distribute the work at all.



See the images: >>70791847 >>70791638

Or read: >>70791578









---











>> 70792249

Wrongo. Without paying consideration, the free licensee cannot hold the

licensor to any promise not to revoke.









---







>> 70792239

> 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.





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.













---







>> 70792280

> "quote"

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



>> https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/

>> https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876

>> https://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.

















---









>> 70793195

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



>> 70793199

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.













---











>> 70793247

> Why is THAT possible and not

Because you did not pay.

It's that simple.



If you did pay for a license, and there are specific conditions

regarding revocation, the courts in the 90s decided that if you were a

consumer, it would hold the commercial entity that sold you that license

to those terms equally, because your purchase of the license was

consideration.



When you get a license for free, there is no consideration.



"But I PROMISED to only modify/distribute/etc the work in accordance to

the permission granted to me by the copyright holder, isn't that a

Promise for a Promise".



No: That's a pre-existing duty. You have no right, outside of the owners

consent, to modify, distribute, create derivative works. You do have a

DUTY to obey US Copyright Law, and not violate his copyright. Only his

permission allows you to do these things regarding his work: so you

assenting to his "gift" of permission is not a detriment against you. No

consideration there.



> some entrapment of sorts?

Applies only to police vs criminal situations (criminal law), not civil

law.













---











>> 70793313

The lay idiots here

1) Think the 9th circuits' opinion is binding on the whole of the USA

2) Think the 9th circuit ruled on the issue (it did not: that is

non-binding dicta, it's not even binding on the lower courts)

3) Don't notice that the 9th circuit court of appeals, a few pages

later, ruled in the opposite direction of it's dicta and found NO

contract: only bare copyright license, and sent the case back down to

the lower court.



Additionally, even if there were all those "nice" things the Copyright

Owner was allegedly receiving (things made of thin air, which are

worthless: the 9th circuit is said to be "a bunch of woman worshiping

faggots", as we all know, (like all white men (regardless of

religion))), if the Copyright Owner didn't seek such things, didn't

bargain for them, there is STILL no valid consideration.



You can't just hand me something I don't want and didn't ask you for and

claim you satisfied contract formation.



Yet that is what all the white boys here are claiming.















---









>> 70793438

>> 70793336

> > When you get a license for free, there is no consideration.



> So if you provide a free cubic meter of concrete during house

> construction in the USA, you can later turn around and reclaim that

> free cubic meter of concrete even if the house collapses?



That would be a gift, not a license. A license is permission. A gift is

a transfer.



> If someone presents you money, they can reclaim it the day after you

> spent it because it was "no consideration"? Lel.



Depends on the terms of the loan. You do know creditor law, correct?



> > Applies only to police vs criminal situations (criminal law), not civil law.

> Seriously?

You can beg the court not to enforce someone legal right immediatly,

this is done all the time in apartment disputes, the court might give

you a few more months to move out when you cry under Equity (not law)

"HE PROMISED! IT'S NOT FAIR". Depends on if you're a white woman or not.

Blacks get treated like shit regardless of gender, men get treated like

shit regardless of race.



> Your civil law has no analogous protections (even if they're not called

> entrapment legally)?



It's called a contract, but to have one you need to give the other

person something that they bargained with you for. Nothing gets you

nothing; it's very fair.





>> 70793474

Opensource licenses are never litigated unless there is a corollary

agreement that can provide for monies.

IE: "Hey, you can pay us for a commercial license, or use the GPL" etc.

People who give things away for free don't have money for lawyers,

additionally if they didn't register their copyright before the

violation, even if a same-similar violation occurs after registration

from the same party, they can still only get damages (no statutory

damages, not attorneys fees).



The damages for a thing costing nothing is nothing, usually.











---













>> 70793484

> A Court's decision influences other Courts. If another Federal Court

> brings up a similar case they will look to this case and probably rule

> similarly.



Do you know what non binding dicta is?

Nothing was ruled upon regarding the GPL's revocability in that case.





> My main reason for bringing that case up is that the Court upheld the

> license's conditions as valid. That should work both ways if the

> conditions were valid that means any line that says >>70791519 is also

> valid.



No. The court held that the license was not a contract, that it was only

a copyright license. Meaning that the licensee was duty-bound to obey

the license, and if he chose to impinge upon the Owner's federal

copyright rights outside of the license, he was committing copyright

infringement and damages as such were obtainable.



The court ruled that the license was _not_ a contract (the violator

wanted it ruled a contract so he could get away with just whatever the

contract damages would be, which would be much less than statutory

damages + attorney's fees, or profit damages) and sent the case back

down to the lower court to dispose of it properly.



Did you even read the case?







---













>> 70793784

Looks like you missed this: >>70789214

shit for brains.



The printer driver company sued some violator, the court said the

violator either had to pay the printer driver company the asked-for

commercial license fee, or suffer damages under federal copyright law,

and it was the printer driver's decision which way it wanted to go:

pretend the violator simply had a commercial license contract and failed

to pay, or find them to be violating the copyright because they didn't

abide by the GPL. IE: commercial license contract OR no commercial

license contract, copyright infringement instead.



This was not a case of a copyright holder rescinding a license from a

free-taker who wasn't asked for nor did tender any consideration.



Also the court didn't even correctly identify "The GPL" and took "The

GPL" to be the commercial copyright license offer + the (actual) gpl.



Sorry kid, try again. The FSF (and bruce perens) is blowing smoke up

your ass once again.



> Google requires 20 more captchas... really doesn't like this thead.

> FUCK YOU GOOGLE WOMAN WORSHIPING FAGGOTS: THE GPL ____IS_____ REVOCABLE

> FROM FREE TAKERS









---





>> 70793810

Nope. If the licensee wishes to distribute the work at all, he must

do so only with the copyright owners permission.



The copyright owner is not allowing distribution sans-license text.



The licensee has no pre-existing right to distribute the work, nor

derivatives of the work.













>> 70793828

The owner can revoke permission to distribute, make derivatives,

make copys, of his work at his will, unless the licensee has secure

rights otherwise.



The licensee secures said rights by entering into a valid copyright

license contract, supported by valid consideration.



Of which there is none for the free-taker.



"I will not distribute your property in a way I am not permitted to"

is not valid consideration.



>20 bicycles later























>> 70793941

It does not matter what the license promises, at all.



You did not pay valid valuable bargained for consideration to the

licensee: you cannot rely on those statements.



It is an Illusory Promise.

You "agreeing" to those "terms" is not valid consideration because such

is subject to the Pre-Existing Duty Rule. You have no right to do

anything regarding the property without the owner's permission, agreeing

to abide by the owner's rules regarding his property is simply a duty

you must follow if you do not wish to violate the Copyright statute. You

have a pre-existing duty to obey applicable laws.



> Myriads of storefronts and crosswalks later















---













>> 70793958

> A license is what it says it is.

Yes, permission. Permission that can be revoked by the owner of the

thing being licensed, unless there exists some secured interest against

him doing so.



> You are licensed to use that work by the author provide that you agree

> to abide by the conditions.

As long as he wishes for you to do so. If he chooses to end that

permission he can do so at any time, unless you have a valid secured

interest against him doing so: by having a valid contract backed by

bargained for valid consideration.



> The author cannot revoke your access for no reason if there's literally

> a section that that says it's irrevocable.

Yes they can. Without a contract that is an illusary promise.

Non-binding on the grantor.



If you want it to be binding: pay him something he's asking for, and not

something you already have a duty to do or preclude yourself from doing

absent permission.





Or let >>70791638 Yotsugi and >>70791847 Yotsuba explain it to you.



Or how about Sapna Kumar:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/















---





>> 70794023

They won't listen because they are lay idiots, or opposing counsel.



>> 70794036

1: that is non-binding dicta, in a case involving the artistic license.



2: the court ruled against what you think the dicta suggests, ruling

that the artistic license was not a contract, and was instead a BARE

copyright license.



3: If you did not ask for "fame bla bla bla" and X gives you "fame bla

bla bla", that "consideration" he tendered you is NOT VALID because YOU

DID NO REQUEST IT.



Sapna Kumar's paper touches upon this, seems you didn't bother to read

it.



Now, last time I checked, GPLv2, even GPLv3, did not ask for "fame and

recognition" in exchange for "freeloaders doing whatever they want with

my copyrighted work, forever and ever amen".



There is no consideration. Bullshit consideration is not allowed by many

courts either ("Hey, I gave him a pen! For this 100,000,000 dollar

mansion" 'Oh looks like a estate tax dodge' --Court), so the 9th circuit

can wax poetically all it wants, it doesn't make it so in the rest of

the country (even though YOU THINK IT DOES), and doesn't make it so even

in their circuit (because they did not rule on it).













---











>> 70794077

> How does that the requirement to distribute the license text with the

> work is a Pre-Existing Duty?



You have no pre-existing right to distribute the work, you only have

permission, by the copyright holder, to distribute it in the way he has

instructed. If you do not do it in the way he has instructed, but do so

in some other way, it is simply a violation of his right of distribution

under the Copyright statute.



You must obey the Copyright statute.



You promising to obey the law is not valid consideration.



"You may distribute my work in this way"

Is purely a gratuity to you.

It is more than "You may not distribute my work at all"











---















---





>> 70775710

> ITT: Redditors with Reddit spacing pretend they are lawyers who know

> anything about copyright law.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/

https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237



Read up.







---



>>> 70794074

> So this is what he meant when he said libre.

Yes. Free works both ways: you are free from payment, and also free

from rights.













