1024400
1024400
#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
#modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
#as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
#of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
1024405
I can't even imagine being this bootyblasted.1024586
1024588
1024589
#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/orYou can't rescind this :^)
#modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
#as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
#of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
You know that gpcslots2 is written in perl, right?1024591Might waste more cycles than the compares.
sue me then XDDDDDDSDDDDSDSSDDDD1024592
1024593
p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved 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. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest is revocable."--Lawrence Rosen
p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/:--Lawrence Rosen
...
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."
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.
1024594sue me then XDDDDDDSDDDDSDSSDDDD
Protip: you won't because you're a LARPerI will if you're in the USA.