On Friday, 26 October 2018, visionsofalice@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
You are conflating case law dealing with commercial software and
non-gratuitous licenses with the present situation, which would likely
be a case of first-impression in nearly any jurisdiction.
I think the best procedure would be for me to publish my analysis and
for you then to tell me what is wrong with it. What you say here
sounds like what a lawyer might say, but isn't. I have been teaching
this stuff for about thirty years, so if I am conflating or confusing
anything I will be grateful for help in seeing my mistake.
The rule for gratuitous licenses is that they are revocable at the will
of the grantor.
That's not actually "the rule." It sounds like it might be the rule,
but it so happens that it's not. When I have given the explanation as
I have learned, taught and depended on it, you will be able to show me
what I am wrong about.
Raymond Nimmer (God rest his soul) was in agreement on this point,
vis-a-vis the GPL and similar licenses.
You have your Nimmers confused. The primary author of the treatise
Nimmer on Copyright (a book about the law, not in itself an authority)
was Melville Nimmer. The treatise is continued by his son, David, a
fine lawyer with whom I do from time to time politely disagree about
something. Ray Nimmer is quite another person.