Date Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:28:21 +0000 From mikeeusa@redchan ... Subject DMCA takedown request to GitHub regarding: GPC-Slots2 As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached

interest, is revocable.



A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game

"GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).

The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an attached

interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for the

license).



The "John Doe" then proceeded to beligerently upload a copy of

"GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.

This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous

bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).



The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated my

copyright since I had previosly revoked his license.

The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is

permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to use

my property.

When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be

rescinded by the owner, at his will.

(/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforcable against the

grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,

under US law.)



I have done so.



I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.



"John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain

to him US law.

"John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating

work up, in defiance of me.

(IE: he would "pirate" it)



He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited published

works by lawyers studied in their field.



(Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting

libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the game

code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the work and

never signed over copyright to the work.)

(Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions

regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a

preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for the

licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute, distribute

derivative works)



[Additionally "John Doe" registered a fradulent account under my

long-held nom-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I

would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on

principal)]



I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA takedown request, to you,

GitHub.



Regrettably;

--MikeeUSA--

(electronic signature)

Jan 29, 2019



Contact information:

email: mikeeusa@redchan.it



infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the

GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the

"John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and

communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and

copyright.

Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the

best of my knowlege and ability.



Some notices to you, github:

1) Yes I viewed your page at:

https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/

2) Yes this is "opensource" code.

3) No that does not matter:

The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable

("retroactively").

Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.

The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me no

consideration.

He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.

It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.

I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a license

(temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term" was indeed

"purchased")

It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my

property at my demand.

I have made such a demand.

4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not

heed my request.

Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy

all you want.

They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.



-----



The conversation with the "John Doe" can be found here:

8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#1024398



Some excerpts:



From me to "John Doe":

> >>1024390

>

> 1) I rescind your permission to modify, make derivative works,

> distribute the program. The GPL license you "have" been granted from

> me, is revoked.

>

> 2) you are impersonating me.







> >>1024400

> I rescind the license from you.

> I am going to sue you if I find out who you are.



----



From "John Doe"

> >Your license was rescinded by author.

> You can't :^)

> I'm not taking it down.





> >>1024597

> >HOW MUCH DID YOU FUCKING PAY ME?

> Nothing. Thank God for that.

>

> >ARE WE IN A CONTRACT?

> No.

>

> >IT IS A BARE LICENSE.

> Is this lawyer speak? I'm not a lawyer, sorry.

>

> >I CAN RESCIND IT AT ANY TIME.

> wrong

>

> >THE CODE IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. IT IS _MY_ PROPERTY.

> It is your intellectual property that you have licensed to me under the

> GPLv2+.

>

> >I ALLOWED YOU A LICENSE TO USE IT.

> correct

>

> >I HAVE NOW REVOKED THAT LICENSE FROM YOU YOU [...].

> no

>

> >Show me a case otherwise.

> why???????????

>

> >Gratis licenses, without an attached interest, are revocable.

> sorry m8. you are wrong









-----



Remeber: A license, absent an interest, is revocable in the US.



-----

Some study materials:

(From: Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual

property):



> p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the

> licenses under which it received contributions, the licenses continue

> in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can

> be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in

> Chapter 4"

--Lawrence Rosen



> p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable

> by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest

> may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the

> payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more

> complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a

> licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a

> contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to

> avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the

> software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent

> upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory

> estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests.

> (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are

> explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us

> to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with

> a bare license that is revocable.

--Lawrence Rosen



> p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the

> plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee

> were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the

> license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending

> the dispute. Remember that a bare license in the absence of an interest

> is revocable."

--Lawrence Rosen



Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and

Intellectual property Law







> p65 "Of all the licenses described in this book, only the GPL makes

> the explicitly point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of

> /consideration/:

> ...

> The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will

> say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6.

> For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially

> the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove

> offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."

--Lawrence Rosen



----

(Additionally:)

> David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:



> "Termination of rights



> [...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases

> code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.



> [...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it

> is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to

> commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can

> enforce themselves.



