FWD: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.

From: vnsndalce
Date: Fri Dec 28 2018 - 13:35:22 EST

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
From R0b0t1
To gentoo-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc ubuntu-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
, debian-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To gentoo-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date Thu 20:39


This was cross posted so many places I have to preface: I got here
from the Gentoo list. If this only makes it to the crossposter forward
or follow up on the information as you see fit.

The post is crass but still has technical merit. More importantly he
seems to be right, the idea that the grantees can't rescind their
grant is pretty strange. I'm allowed to change my mind, and you have
no claim to my labor if you didn't pay for it, nor can you make me
work for free.

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:16 PM <vsnsdualce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made,
> because of (1))...

I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*.

A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will.

This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD
license(s).
The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests
are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis
(paying) customers
may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current
versions they have
in their posession, paid for by good consideration.


<offtopic>
There is one thing you get for free (that you probably had anyway):

I was seeing whether or not the disclaimer of liability in most FOSS
licenses was valid. They may not be, *especially* in those United
States which require a guarantee of merchantability or suitability for
a particular purpose.

Read: You made it, you claim it does something, and if someone uses it
and it *doesn't* do that thing explosively it's still your fault even
if it was free. The amount of damages are definitely tempered by the
fact it was free. Depending on the license, state, and judge, you
could have given consideration even though you did not pay money.
</offtopic>

Everyone else has NOTHING.
Do you understand that?


I think it is important to clarify that it can be requested you stop
distributing the work or stop using it for some commercial purpose,
but there is no way you could e.g. be forced to delete copies of it
you already have.

Also: Consideration can be nonmonetary, can you speak to this?

Cheers,
R0b0t1

[... snip anger ...]

On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote:
> (1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists.
>
> (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made,
> because of (1))...
>
> (3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making
> these mistakes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM <visionsofalice@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5
>> hours
>> after it was published:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes they can, greg.
>>
>> The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks
>> consideration between the licensee and the grantor.
>>
>> (IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen
>> to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you,
>> in
>> fact, gain no bargained-for benefit)
>>
>> As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules
>> regarding the alienation of property apply.
>>
>> Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor.
>>
>> The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your
>> as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and
>> "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming
>> your right to rescind the license.
>>
>> Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL
>> version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any
>> later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly
>> savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one
>> of
>> them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to
>> say
>> that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt
>> at the least)).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause
>> 4
>> of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause.
>>
>> However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a
>> reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking
>> specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses
>> their
>> permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that
>> case
>> the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission
>> under the terms.
>>
>> Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as
>> the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's
>> public
>> service announcement chooses to ignore.
>>
>> Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public
>> and
>> the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not
>> impinge
>> the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner
>> vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission,
>> extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of
>> property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a
>> permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The
>> impinged
>> property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be
>> taken
>> back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v.
>> Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses,
>> even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it
>> comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower
>> (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of
>> contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case,
>> and
>> instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a
>> Copyright License.
>>
>> The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to:
>> 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts -
>> opensource is great")
>> 2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not
>> Contract)
>> 3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2
>> 4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions.
>> (Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a
>> district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much
>> more consistent in it's rulings?)
>> 5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract
>> formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc.
>>
>> Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce
>> Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck
>> of
>> happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those
>> who
>> support women.
>>
>> (This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy
>> menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female
>> children
>> as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - -
>> verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban
>> world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their
>> will.... who are not idolators of Women)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your
>> code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is...
>>
>> They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you.
>> They
>> CANNOT hold YOU.
>>
>> You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from
>> any
>> future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are
>> done harm.
>>
>> Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into
>> thinking
>> otherwise.
>>
>> And, yes, I am a lawyer.
>> And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside
>> counsel to analyze the fact pattern. (And even then all they could
>> come
>> up with was statements using weasel words "may" etc: not even wanting
>> to
>> commit to their clearly-disingenuous publication)
>>
>>
>> (Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here
>> is
>> one
>> http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
>> )
>>
>> On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > wrote:
>> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
>> >
>> > No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
>> >
>> > greg k-h
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@xxxxxxxxxx
>> > wrote:
>> >> The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
>> > Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100:
>> >>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.
>> >
>> > I was explicitly cc'ed on this thread by visionsofalice. I've read the
>> > whole thread, and the only useful thing I can contribute here is to
>> > agree
>> > with Greg and additionally provide some backup research on the point:
>> > https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/
>> >
>> > Software Freedom Conservancy engaged our legal counsel to write a new
>> > section for the Copyleft Guide that further explains the irrevocability
>> > of
>> > GPLv2. We published this when others raised these specious claims back
>> > in
>> > September. Direct link to new section:
>> > https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
>> >
>> >
>> > HTH,
>>
>>
>>