From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8084FC169C4 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:52:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA10C217F5 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:52:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redchan.it header.i=@redchan.it header.b="awePZI0A" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727416AbfA2IwD (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 03:52:03 -0500 Received: from cock.li ([185.100.85.212]:52174 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726374AbfA2IwC (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 03:52:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=redchan.it; s=mail; t=1548751918; bh=QPdyuigF6EU4CF+9Dg6Ehlk8XZjLKn6w7mVpUWrWJUU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=awePZI0As9Wzub7cQo7ZTr3d0lvB8EoMyCbr6IN5XaBxud64vN7YtfYXuYRggDkny dcrp+rpvrDXQ3zR8EHT2E8xza5b6ykxWcSvdkl12513T7Gffu0OA/eks5ez6y7J7e+ injFjjmcyYljxxK7GhuE1djsjxBql+Q4Y08EYj40WlRs9oaJxgfe8WDm398wQwPCCV HfQp+dRVinVs2NEQa5Y6Y7FhlwD81w1WXx41tAdBXehpvBXgZGM8ENjXqpRReUsndR 6kXZqDqbGcNI2FcSXKkA9bbRcZZxscCQKyT1BJZwZ8UX/2yRY+UZba8JBoOh1geaWG +tX05UCZRQ2zA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:51:58 +0000 From: linuxgpletc@redchan.it To: editor@lulz.com, editor@lwn.net, news@theregister.co.uk Cc: misc@openbsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Author of GPC-Slots2 promises to sue "John Doe" who violated GPL recission. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <079afe1da0d8fb5c3aad064796d84c5d@redchan.it> X-Sender: linuxgpletc@redchan.it User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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