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, [email protected]
> 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, [email protected]
> 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,
> (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 a__hole*.
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.
Everyone else has NOTHING.
Do you understand that?
In the case of the 1000's of linux copyright holders to whom no
consideration
was given by an entity, and the various BSD copyright holders (read: the
programmers),
who have not ASSIGNED their copyright over to some other entity, there
is
NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU F___ING PIECE OF S__T?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER THEY NOR YOU HAVE PROMISED NOT TO ELLECT
TO USE YOUR AS-OF-RIGHT OPTION TO RESCIND YOUR GRATUITOUS LICENSE
REGARDING
YOUR WORK.
One cannot rely on a promise that was never made, additionally many of
them
were never paid consideration for this non existant promise either.
*(Note: I am both a programmer and an attorney, so I know the type)
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
>
> (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.
Everyone else has NOTHING.
Do you understand that?
In the case of the 1000's of linux copyright holders to whom no
consideration
was given by an entity, and the various BSD copyright holders (read: the
programmers),
who have not ASSIGNED their copyright over to some other entity, there
is
NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER THEY NOR YOU HAVE PROMISED NOT TO ELLECT
TO USE YOUR AS-OF-RIGHT OPTION TO RESCIND YOUR GRATUITOUS LICENSE
REGARDING
YOUR WORK.
One cannot rely on a promise that was never made, additionally many of
them
were never paid consideration for this non existant promise either.
*(Note: I am both a programmer and an attorney, so I know the type)
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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected]
>> > 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, [email protected]
>> > 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,
>>
>>
>>
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 3:12 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... pompous programmer asshole*.
I think you are projecting your own personality in your perception of
others (which is a natural thing to do - everyone does that to some
degree).
That said, I am going to filter your messages to my spam bucket from now on.
Have fun,
--
Raul
No legal reasoning to assert.
A license without an attached interest is revocable by the grantor.
On 2018-12-28 17:22, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 3:12 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ... pompous programmer asshole*.
>
> I think you are projecting your own personality in your perception of
> others (which is a natural thing to do - everyone does that to some
> degree).
>
> That said, I am going to filter your messages to my spam bucket from
> now on.
>
> Have fun,