As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
"Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified
durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This
means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or
without cause." +
Version 2 of the GPL specifies no duration, nor does it declare that it
is non-revocable by the grantor.
(Also note: A perpetual license may violate the rule against
perpetuities in various jurisdictions where it is applied not only to
real property but additionally to personal property (and the like),
which is why the GPL-3's term of duration is set as the duration of
copyright on the program (and not "forever"))
+[https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2013/02/the-terms-revocable-and-irrevocable-in-license-agreements-tips-and-pitfalls]
[email protected] <[email protected]>:
> As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
> "Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified
> durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This means
> that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or without
> cause." +
Furthermore, license revocation is not the only option. In Jacobsen
vs. Katzer (535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) it was found that
open-source developers have an actionable right not to have their
software misappropriated even though the resulting damages are only
reputational rather than monetary.
Under that theory, developers can seek an injunction against a
misappropriating party without globally revoking their license.
The application of that case law to this situation is left as
an easy exercise for the reader. Any competent paralegal could
write the brief in an evening. Hell, I could almost do it myself.
I do not personally want to see this happen. But that it is possible
is a fact all parties must deal with.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
It is imperative that the people know their rights so that they are not
taken advantage of by moneyed interests.
For those who are dispossessed there are remedies at law and in equity.
Here we have a situation where moneyed interests have found a social
exploit to leverage into ascendancy, while
those who created the edifice which they have willed to conquer are shut
out.
On 2018-09-28 03:56, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> [email protected] <[email protected]>:
>> As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
>> "Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified
>> durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This
>> means
>> that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or
>> without
>> cause." +
>
> Furthermore, license revocation is not the only option. In Jacobsen
> vs. Katzer (535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) it was found that
> open-source developers have an actionable right not to have their
> software misappropriated even though the resulting damages are only
> reputational rather than monetary.
>
> Under that theory, developers can seek an injunction against a
> misappropriating party without globally revoking their license.
> The application of that case law to this situation is left as
> an easy exercise for the reader. Any competent paralegal could
> write the brief in an evening. Hell, I could almost do it myself.
>
> I do not personally want to see this happen. But that it is possible
> is a fact all parties must deal with.