Re: Author of GPC-Slots2 promises to sue "John Doe" who violated GPL recission.

[linuxgpletc@redchan.it]

Some updates:

http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#1024398

Anonymous  01/29/19 (Tue) 08:32:45 No.1024591

>> 1024400

I rescind the license from you.

I am going to sue you if I find out who you are.

>> 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.

That is permission. It flows from me, NOT the file.

I am the owner of the GPC-Slots2 game code.

The previously given permission has been revoked from you.

A license, absent an interest, is revocable.

You have paid me nothing. I can and I have rescinded the license from 
you and am not granting you any others.

You are now violating my copyright, should you continue to 
redistribute/modify/etc.

That's how it works in the USA.

>> 1024405

Might waste more cycles than the compares.




-------




Anonymous  01/29/19 (Tue) 08:35:04 No.1024593

>> 1024586
>> 1024588
>> 1024589
I can't even imagine being this bootyblasted.
> #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.
You can't rescind this :^)


Anonymous  01/29/19 (Tue) 08:36:48 No.1024594
>> 1024591
> Might waste more cycles than the compares.
You know that gpcslots2 is written in perl, right?

>> 1024592
sue me then XDDDDDDSDDDDSDSSDDDD
Protip: you won't because you're a LARPer




-------




>> 1024593

YES I CAN.
HOW MUCH DID YOU FUCKING PAY ME?
NOTHING.

ARE WE IN A CONTRACT?
NO.

IT IS A BARE LICENSE.

I __CAN__ RESCIND IT AT ANY TIME. AND I HAVE FROM YOU YOU FUCKING PIECE 
OF FUCKING SHIT.

THE CODE IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. IT IS _MY_ PROPERTY.
I CAN DECIDE HOW __MY____ FUCKING PROPERTY IS TO BE USED.

I DID _NOT__ GIVE YOU THE PROPERTY. I ALLOWED YOU A LICENSE TO USE IT. I 
HAVE NOW REVOKED THAT LICENSE FROM YOU YOU FUCKING PRO-WOMEN'S RIGHTS 
ANTI-MARRY-CUTE-YOUNG-GIRLS PIECE OF FUCKING FILTH.

As such, said language you quoted is no longer operative for you.
Show me a case otherwise.
You won't because you cannot.
Gratis licenses, without an attached interest, are revocable.


> 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

Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and 
Intellectual property Law



> p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the 
> explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of 
> /consideration/:
> ...
> 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."
--Lawrence Rosen

----
> 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.





-------


Anonymous  01/29/19 (Tue) 08:45:52 No.1024599
>> 1024594
> sue me then XDDDDDDSDDDDSDSSDDDD

Kindly provide your name, address, etc. Also a photo.

> Protip: you won't because you're a LARPer
I will if you're in the USA.
If you're not then this is a meaningless discussion. This is about US 
law, not some other country's law