DMCA takedown notice - GPC-Slots 2 (after GPL Revocation from "John Doe")

DMCA takedown notice - GPC-Slots 2 (after GPL Revocation from "John Doe")

[mikeeusa]

**Please provide a detailed description of the original copyrighted work 
that has allegedly been infringed. If possible, include a URL to where 
it is posted online.**

GPC-Slots 2 is a text-mode casino game I created. It includes 5 slot 
machines, 3 table games (Sic Bo, Craps, and 2 variations of the little 
wheel), plus Russian Roulette and a stock market.
You can enjoy it from here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/

*What files should be taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or 
if the entire repository, the repository's URL:**

http://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

**Have you searched for any forks of the allegedly infringing files or 
repositories? Each fork is a distinct repository and must be identified 
separately if you believe it is infringing and wish to have it taken 
down.**

Yes, they are also on other platforms, all uploaded by the "John Doe"

**Is the work licensed under an open source license? If so, which open 
source license? Are the allegedly infringing files being used under the 
open source license, or are they in violation of the license?**

Yes. The GPL. However I had revoked the "John Doe"'s license. The 
license, in this instance, being a bare license.
A license without an interest attached is revocable, in the USA.
The "John Doe" was not in privity of contract with me, and had not paid 
me anything for the work.
It was licensed to him under a bare license, which had then been 
rescinded.
He thus had not, and does not have, any permission to use, modify, 
distribute, nor make derivative works of the aforementioned work.
Remeber: the license comes from me, the Copyright owner. Not from any 
document or record: that is simply a memorandum of the terms.
I have chosen to revoke the "John Doe"'s license, and not issue any to 
him further. He has been informed of this.
His actions there-after and at current are infringing.

**What would be the best solution for the alleged infringement? Are 
there specific changes the other person can make other than removal?**

The only solution that I will accept is you acquiescing to my demand of 
removal.

**Do you have the alleged infringer's contact information? If so, please 
provide it:**

No. You can ask him for it here: 8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html
You can also contact the "John Doe" through the email he registered with 
you. Don't play dumb.

**Please confirm that you have you have read our Guide to Submitting a 
DMCA Takedown Notice: 
https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/**

I really do not give half a damn about your guide. It is patronizing and 
moronic, it sounds as if it were written by a woman, perhaps a 
paralegal.
The fact of the matter is that a bare license is revocable by the 
grantor.
To achieve an irrevocable license one must generally enter into a 
copyright license contract with the licensor, supported by good 
consideration.
"Obeying the license" is not good consideration as it is a pre-existing 
legal duty.

**So that we can get back to you, please provide either your telephone 
number or physical address:**

Contact me at mikeeusa@redchan.it

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials 
described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the 
copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into 
consideration.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this 
notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am 
authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is 
allegedly infringed.

**Please type your full legal name below to sign this request:**

I'm signing with my long-held nom de guerre. Think of it as an X

--MikeeUSA--

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.

I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John 
Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.

I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.

The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law 
as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically 
associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a 
person with the intent to sign the record."

My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is important 
is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.

I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so that 
you may know that I am me:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download

(I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)

In addition to many other places.
Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is legally 
inefficacious.

I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.

--MikeeUSA--
(Author of GPC-Slots 2)
(electronic signature)

On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
> 
> Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
> for reference.
> 
> This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
> signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
> exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
> reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
> complaining party."
> 
> Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
> monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
> email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
> 
> Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
> process it expeditiously.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> GitHub Staff
> -------------------------
> 
> I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
> described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the
> copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into
> consideration.
> 
> I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
> notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am
> authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that
> is allegedly infringed.
> :
> 
> As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached
> interest, is revocable.
> 
> A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game
> "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).
> The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an
> attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for
> the license).
> 
> The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of
> "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.
> This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous
> bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).
> 
> The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated
> my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.
> The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is
> permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to
> use my property.
> When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be
> rescinded by the owner, at his will.
> (/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the
> grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,
> under US law.)
> 
> I have done so.
> 
> I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.
> 
> "John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain
> to him US law.
> "John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating
> work up, in defiance of me.
> (IE: he would "pirate" it)
> 
> He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited
> published works by lawyers studied in their field.
> 
> (Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting
> libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the
> game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the
> work and never signed over copyright to the work.)
> (Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions
> regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a
> preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for
> the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute,
> distribute derivative works)
> 
> [Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my
> long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I
> would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on
> principal)]
> 
> I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,
> GitHub.
> 
> Regrettably;
> --MikeeUSA--
> (electronic signature)
> Jan 29, 2019
> 
> (Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to gitlab.com
> and bitbucket.org
> 
> Contact information:
> email: mikeeusa@redchan.it
> 
> infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
> gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
> bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2
> The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the
> GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the
> "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and
> communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and
> copyright.
> Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the
> best of my knowledge and ability.
> 
> Some notices to you, github (and now gitlab and bitbucket):
> 1) Yes I viewed your page at:
> https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/
> 2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
> 3) No that does not matter:
> The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
> ("retroactively").
> Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.
> The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me
> no consideration.
> He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.
> It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.
> I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a
> license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term"
> was indeed "purchased")
> It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my
> property at my demand.
> I have made such a demand.
> 4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not
> heed my request.
> Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy
> all you want.
> They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[Martin Schroeder]

The fact that you even spend this much time on trying to take back
your gift to the community instead of just accepting your
responsibility for your own actions is impressive. And unless you sign
with your legal name and your copyright notices uses your legal name
as well as details of your location then your claims have no effect at
all because it is literally impossible to even speculate that you are
the copyright holder - let alone proving it beyond any reasonable
doubt that it is the case. So if you are serious about this and not
just simulating a possible angle of attack on the GPL that somebody
else could take to illustrate a possible weakness in the GPL, then
stop hiding behind anonymity and file an actual real claim with a
court.

Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not
with the license. A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a
work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met
should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
unless the terms of the license itself are broken. Having the
possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any
other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they
accepted the license would have tremendous negative consequences and
disruptions to many areas of the society. If the law has a loophole
like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it
doesn't have it anymore in the near future.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:10 AM <mikeeusa@redchan.it> wrote:
>
> You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.
>
> I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John
> Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.
>
> I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.
>
> The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law
> as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically
> associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a
> person with the intent to sign the record."
>
> My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is important
> is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.
>
> I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so that
> you may know that I am me:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download
>
> (I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)
>
> In addition to many other places.
> Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is legally
> inefficacious.
>
> I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.
>
> --MikeeUSA--
> (Author of GPC-Slots 2)
> (electronic signature)
>
> On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
> > Hi MikeeUSA,
> >
> > Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
> > for reference.
> >
> > This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
> > signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
> > exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
> > reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
> > complaining party."
> >
> > Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
> > monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
> > email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
> >
> > Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> > please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> > sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
> > process it expeditiously.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > GitHub Staff
> > -------------------------
> >
> > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
> > described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the
> > copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into
> > consideration.
> >
> > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
> > notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am
> > authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that
> > is allegedly infringed.
> > :
> >
> > As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached
> > interest, is revocable.
> >
> > A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game
> > "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).
> > The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an
> > attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for
> > the license).
> >
> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of
> > "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.
> > This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous
> > bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).
> >
> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated
> > my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.
> > The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is
> > permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to
> > use my property.
> > When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be
> > rescinded by the owner, at his will.
> > (/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the
> > grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,
> > under US law.)
> >
> > I have done so.
> >
> > I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.
> >
> > "John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain
> > to him US law.
> > "John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating
> > work up, in defiance of me.
> > (IE: he would "pirate" it)
> >
> > He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited
> > published works by lawyers studied in their field.
> >
> > (Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting
> > libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the
> > game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the
> > work and never signed over copyright to the work.)
> > (Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions
> > regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a
> > preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for
> > the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute,
> > distribute derivative works)
> >
> > [Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my
> > long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I
> > would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on
> > principal)]
> >
> > I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,
> > GitHub.
> >
> > Regrettably;
> > --MikeeUSA--
> > (electronic signature)
> > Jan 29, 2019
> >
> > (Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to gitlab.com
> > and bitbucket.org
> >
> > Contact information:
> > email: mikeeusa@redchan.it
> >
> > infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
> > gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
> > bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2
> > The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the
> > GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the
> > "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and
> > communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and
> > copyright.
> > Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the
> > best of my knowledge and ability.
> >
> > Some notices to you, github (and now gitlab and bitbucket):
> > 1) Yes I viewed your page at:
> > https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/
> > 2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
> > 3) No that does not matter:
> > The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
> > ("retroactively").
> > Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.
> > The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me
> > no consideration.
> > He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.
> > It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.
> > I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a
> > license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term"
> > was indeed "purchased")
> > It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my
> > property at my demand.
> > I have made such a demand.
> > 4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not
> > heed my request.
> > Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy
> > all you want.
> > They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

> Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not 
> with the license.

"The law is wrong because it doesn't commit a taking regarding things 
that were not transfered" is what this marxist is saying.


> A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a work provided that 
> certain conditions outlined in the license are met should never be 
> revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
unless the terms of the license itself are broken.

That is so: if you paid for those terms. If you paid nothing you get 
nothing. The linux kernel contributors did not GIVE anything away, they 
allowed USE of a thing THEY own. If they wanted to GIVE their property 
away they could have done so by _TRANSFERING_ it to a non profit such as 
the FSF, or declaring it the domain of the public. They chose to do 
neither.

> Having the possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a 
> license for any other reason than conditions that the licensee was 
> aware of when they accepted the license

There was no acceptance required. YOU are not allowed to use the owners 
property WITHOUT his permission, YOU do not have the right to "accept or 
reject" his dictats regarding his PROPERTY. You must OBEY the owner's 
demands regarding HIS property. There is no contract, terms, negotiation 
here.

YOU give nothing, YOU get nothing.


> would have tremendous negative consequences and
disruptions to many areas of the society.

Society is "women and their (female) children". Why should men care for 
their enemies and slave masters?

How is YOU not getting something for free harming "society"? It's how 
society functions. You must pay Society (Women) your whole life for a 
little taste, and then they send you to prison or the poorhouse once 
they're done with you.

> If the law has a loophole
This is not a loop hole. It is a basic function of US contracting and 
licensing law. Just because you don't like that a gratis non-exclusive 
license that you have benefited under while also trying to use to 
convert the Author's property whilst kicking him to the curb, is 
revocable by that Author, doesn't mean there is some "loophole" here. It 
works as designed: the Copyright owner is a property owner and can 
decide how his property is to be used. If you want a 
non-revocable-outside-the-terms license you must contract for one and 
pay the author good consideration.

> like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it 
> doesn't have it anymore in the near future.
Who the FUCK is "WE"
WHO is "WE"

"WE" isn't me. And I damn sure am a Open Source progammer, music 
producer, media creator, 3d modeler, game designer, etc.

And I am NOT "WE".

Maybe "WE" is faggot hangers-on like yourself? Who just take from the 
"males" and then try to dispossess them of even their dignity while 
converting their works?


On 2019-03-06 04:48, Martin Schroeder wrote:
> The fact that you even spend this much time on trying to take back
> your gift to the community instead of just accepting your
> responsibility for your own actions is impressive. And unless you sign
> with your legal name and your copyright notices uses your legal name
> as well as details of your location then your claims have no effect at
> all because it is literally impossible to even speculate that you are
> the copyright holder - let alone proving it beyond any reasonable
> doubt that it is the case. So if you are serious about this and not
> just simulating a possible angle of attack on the GPL that somebody
> else could take to illustrate a possible weakness in the GPL, then
> stop hiding behind anonymity and file an actual real claim with a
> court.
> 
> Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not
> with the license. A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a
> work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met
> should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
> unless the terms of the license itself are broken. Having the
> possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any
> other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they
> accepted the license would have tremendous negative consequences and
> disruptions to many areas of the society. If the law has a loophole
> like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it
> doesn't have it anymore in the near future.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:10 AM <mikeeusa@redchan.it> wrote:
>> 
>> You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.
>> 
>> I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John
>> Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.
>> 
>> I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.
>> 
>> The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US 
>> law
>> as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically
>> associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by 
>> a
>> person with the intent to sign the record."
>> 
>> My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is 
>> important
>> is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.
>> 
>> I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so 
>> that
>> you may know that I am me:
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/
>> 
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download
>> 
>> (I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)
>> 
>> In addition to many other places.
>> Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is 
>> legally
>> inefficacious.
>> 
>> I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.
>> 
>> --MikeeUSA--
>> (Author of GPC-Slots 2)
>> (electronic signature)
>> 
>> On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
>> > Hi MikeeUSA,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
>> > for reference.
>> >
>> > This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
>> > signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
>> > exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
>> > reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
>> > complaining party."
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
>> > monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
>> > email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
>> >
>> > Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
>> > please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
>> > sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
>> > process it expeditiously.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > GitHub Staff
>> > -------------------------
>> >
>> > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
>> > described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the
>> > copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into
>> > consideration.
>> >
>> > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
>> > notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am
>> > authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that
>> > is allegedly infringed.
>> > :
>> >
>> > As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached
>> > interest, is revocable.
>> >
>> > A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game
>> > "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).
>> > The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an
>> > attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for
>> > the license).
>> >
>> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of
>> > "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.
>> > This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous
>> > bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).
>> >
>> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated
>> > my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.
>> > The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is
>> > permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to
>> > use my property.
>> > When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be
>> > rescinded by the owner, at his will.
>> > (/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the
>> > grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,
>> > under US law.)
>> >
>> > I have done so.
>> >
>> > I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.
>> >
>> > "John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain
>> > to him US law.
>> > "John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating
>> > work up, in defiance of me.
>> > (IE: he would "pirate" it)
>> >
>> > He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited
>> > published works by lawyers studied in their field.
>> >
>> > (Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting
>> > libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the
>> > game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the
>> > work and never signed over copyright to the work.)
>> > (Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions
>> > regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a
>> > preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for
>> > the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute,
>> > distribute derivative works)
>> >
>> > [Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my
>> > long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I
>> > would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on
>> > principal)]
>> >
>> > I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,
>> > GitHub.
>> >
>> > Regrettably;
>> > --MikeeUSA--
>> > (electronic signature)
>> > Jan 29, 2019
>> >
>> > (Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to gitlab.com
>> > and bitbucket.org
>> >
>> > Contact information:
>> > email: mikeeusa@redchan.it
>> >
>> > infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
>> > gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
>> > bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2
>> > The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the
>> > GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the
>> > "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and
>> > communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and
>> > copyright.
>> > Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the
>> > best of my knowledge and ability.
>> >
>> > Some notices to you, github (and now gitlab and bitbucket):
>> > 1) Yes I viewed your page at:
>> > https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/
>> > 2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
>> > 3) No that does not matter:
>> > The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
>> > ("retroactively").
>> > Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.
>> > The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me
>> > no consideration.
>> > He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.
>> > It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.
>> > I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a
>> > license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term"
>> > was indeed "purchased")
>> > It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my
>> > property at my demand.
>> > I have made such a demand.
>> > 4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not
>> > heed my request.
>> > Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy
>> > all you want.
>> > They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

Re: DMCA takedown notice - Reply to Martin Schroeder

[mikeeusa]

> Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not 
> with the license.

"The law is wrong because it doesn't commit a taking regarding things 
that were not transferred" is what this marxist is saying.


> A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a work provided that 
> certain conditions outlined in the license are met should never be 
> revocable from THAT particular copy of the work, unless the terms of 
> the license itself are broken.

That is so: if you paid for those terms. If you paid nothing you get 
nothing. The linux kernel contributors did not GIVE anything away, they 
allowed USE of a thing THEY own. If they wanted to GIVE their property 
away they could have done so by _TRANSFERRING_ it to a non profit such 
as the FSF, or declaring it the domain of the public. They chose to do 
neither.


> Having the possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a 
> license for any other reason than conditions that the licensee was 
> aware of when they accepted the license

There was no acceptance required. YOU are not allowed to use the owners 
property WITHOUT his permission, YOU do not have the right to "accept or 
reject" his dictats regarding his PROPERTY. You must OBEY the owner's 
demands regarding HIS property. There is no contract, terms, negotiation 
here.

YOU give nothing, YOU get nothing.


> would have tremendous negative consequences and disruptions to many 
> areas of the society.

Society is "women and their (female) children". Why should men care for 
their enemies and slave masters?

How is YOU not getting something for free harming "society"? It's how 
society functions. You must pay Society (Women) your whole life for a 
little taste, and then they send you to prison or the poorhouse once 
they're done with you.


> If the law has a loophole

This is not a loop hole. It is a basic function of US contracting and 
licensing law. Just because you don't like that a gratis non-exclusive 
license that you have benefited under while also trying to use to 
convert the Author's property whilst kicking him to the curb, is 
revocable by that Author, doesn't mean there is some "loophole" here. It 
works as designed: the Copyright owner is a property owner and can 
decide how his property is to be used. If you want a 
non-revocable-outside-the-terms license you must contract for one and 
pay the author good consideration.

> like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it 
> doesn't have it anymore in the near future.

Who the FUCK is "WE"
WHO is "WE"

"WE" isn't me. And I damn sure am a Open Source progammer, music 
producer, media creator, 3d modeler, game designer, etc.

And I am NOT "WE".

Maybe "WE" is faggot hangers-on like yourself? Who just take from the 
"males" and then try to dispossess them of even their dignity while 
converting their works?


On 2019-03-06 04:48, Martin Schroeder wrote:
> The fact that you even spend this much time on trying to take back
> your gift to the community instead of just accepting your
> responsibility for your own actions is impressive. And unless you sign
> with your legal name and your copyright notices uses your legal name
> as well as details of your location then your claims have no effect at
> all because it is literally impossible to even speculate that you are
> the copyright holder - let alone proving it beyond any reasonable
> doubt that it is the case. So if you are serious about this and not
> just simulating a possible angle of attack on the GPL that somebody
> else could take to illustrate a possible weakness in the GPL, then
> stop hiding behind anonymity and file an actual real claim with a
> court.
> 
> Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not
> with the license. A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a
> work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met
> should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
> unless the terms of the license itself are broken. Having the
> possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any
> other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they
> accepted the license would have tremendous negative consequences and
> disruptions to many areas of the society. If the law has a loophole
> like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it
> doesn't have it anymore in the near future.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:10 AM <mikeeusa@redchan.it> wrote:
>> 
>> You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.
>> 
>> I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John
>> Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.
>> 
>> I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.
>> 
>> The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US 
>> law
>> as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically
>> associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by 
>> a
>> person with the intent to sign the record."
>> 
>> My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is 
>> important
>> is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.
>> 
>> I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so 
>> that
>> you may know that I am me:
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/
>> 
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download
>> 
>> (I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)
>> 
>> In addition to many other places.
>> Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is 
>> legally
>> inefficacious.
>> 
>> I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.
>> 
>> --MikeeUSA--
>> (Author of GPC-Slots 2)
>> (electronic signature)
>> 
>> On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
>> > Hi MikeeUSA,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
>> > for reference.
>> >
>> > This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
>> > signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
>> > exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
>> > reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
>> > complaining party."
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
>> > monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
>> > email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
>> >
>> > Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
>> > please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
>> > sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
>> > process it expeditiously.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > GitHub Staff
>> > -------------------------
>> >
>> > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
>> > described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the
>> > copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into
>> > consideration.
>> >
>> > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
>> > notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am
>> > authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that
>> > is allegedly infringed.
>> > :
>> >
>> > As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached
>> > interest, is revocable.
>> >
>> > A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game
>> > "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).
>> > The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an
>> > attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for
>> > the license).
>> >
>> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of
>> > "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.
>> > This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous
>> > bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).
>> >
>> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated
>> > my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.
>> > The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is
>> > permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to
>> > use my property.
>> > When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be
>> > rescinded by the owner, at his will.
>> > (/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the
>> > grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,
>> > under US law.)
>> >
>> > I have done so.
>> >
>> > I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.
>> >
>> > "John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain
>> > to him US law.
>> > "John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating
>> > work up, in defiance of me.
>> > (IE: he would "pirate" it)
>> >
>> > He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited
>> > published works by lawyers studied in their field.
>> >
>> > (Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting
>> > libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the
>> > game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the
>> > work and never signed over copyright to the work.)
>> > (Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions
>> > regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a
>> > preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for
>> > the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute,
>> > distribute derivative works)
>> >
>> > [Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my
>> > long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I
>> > would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on
>> > principal)]
>> >
>> > I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,
>> > GitHub.
>> >
>> > Regrettably;
>> > --MikeeUSA--
>> > (electronic signature)
>> > Jan 29, 2019
>> >
>> > (Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to gitlab.com
>> > and bitbucket.org
>> >
>> > Contact information:
>> > email: mikeeusa@redchan.it
>> >
>> > infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
>> > gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
>> > bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2
>> > The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the
>> > GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the
>> > "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and
>> > communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and
>> > copyright.
>> > Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the
>> > best of my knowledge and ability.
>> >
>> > Some notices to you, github (and now gitlab and bitbucket):
>> > 1) Yes I viewed your page at:
>> > https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/
>> > 2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
>> > 3) No that does not matter:
>> > The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
>> > ("retroactively").
>> > Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.
>> > The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me
>> > no consideration.
>> > He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.
>> > It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.
>> > I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a
>> > license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term"
>> > was indeed "purchased")
>> > It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my
>> > property at my demand.
>> > I have made such a demand.
>> > 4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not
>> > heed my request.
>> > Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy
>> > all you want.
>> > They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
request.

This is the very spot that the John Doe has obtained the work.

Secondly it is my exclusive right, as the copyright holder, to control
the distribution of the work as I see fit, and to control the creation
and distribution of derivatives of the work.

I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.

An exclusive right of mine has been violated by the John Doe 
subsequently,
and with notice of the revocation.

A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable in the
United States of America. An interest attaches when a licensee pays
the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable
bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such an 
attached
interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.

Here the John Doe did neither, and does not hold an attached interest
with which to bind me to any supposed promise. Any such promise is 
illusory.

Additionally, the acknowledgement and assent regarding a per-existing
legal duty is not valid consideration.

The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US 
Jurisprudence.

In the Artifex v Hancom cited by proponents of the "GPL is a contract 
(and always a contract)" view much is made of this proclamation by the 
lower court in the 9th circuit:
  >"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides 
that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not 
obtain a commercial license."

This is patently false. The GPL contains no such language, The offer to 
do business on the plaintiff's website (regarding the Artifex case) DOES 
contain such language The court conflates that language into "the GPL" 
in this case. The GPL, in fact, declares the the user does not have to 
agree to any of it's terms.

I invite you to consult this learned treatise:
(1) 
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
In addition to ENFORCING THE GNU GPL by Sapna Kumar (page 16)
(2) http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
Legal Implications of Open-Source Software by David McGowan, Professor 
of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
(3) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=249130

All of which explain in concise terms, easily understandable by the lay 
person, why the GPL is revocable from non-paying licensees.

I am an attorney, and I reiterate my demands.
Signed;
--MikeeUSA--



On 2019-02-20 20:10, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
> 
> Unfortunately, a pen name does not suffice when used in combination
> with a disposable email address. Whether under the definition in 15
> U.S.C 7006(5) which you cited, or as used in the DMCA, an electronic
> signature needs to be associated with a person, as that term is
> defined by 15 U.S.C. 7006(8). A psuedonym, without other information
> that would allow us to associate that with a specific, identifiable
> person, does not meet 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i)'s requirement that it be
> signed by an authorized person. As a practical matter, this is
> especially necessary where, as you claim, an account that may not be
> you is posting content using that same pseudonym.
> 
> Even if that were not so, your notice would still be incomplete in two
> other ways.
> 
> First, it lacks "information reasonably sufficient to permit the
> service provider to contact the complaining party," as you've used a
> disposable email address and provided no other contact information
> that would be sufficient to assure we can contact the complaining
> party. This type of reliable contact information is required by 17
> U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(iv).
> 
> Second, your notice does not appear to identify material which
> infringes on any exclusive rights in the original work. Both your
> source code and the repositories you identified are published under
> GPL licenses. You have not identified any way in which those
> repositories violate the GPL, and without more detail we cannot
> determine how redistributing or modifying GPL-licensed code would
> constitute infringing activity. While GitHub is not in a position to
> provide you with legal advice, here is an informative link about the
> irrevocability of GPL licenses:
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
> 
> Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we
> will process it expeditiously.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> GitHub Staff

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

I am going to sue your staff for contributory copyright infringement in 
their personal capacity, in addition to you company.
I have given you ample notice to remove the work.

> Moreover, you have not addressed other doctrines, such as reliance or 
> promissory estoppel, which would prevent revocation even in the absence 
> of valuable consideration.

These are equitable defenses. Not defenses-at-law. They are determined 
on a case by case basis. Promissory estoppel is most often "awarded" 
when a defendant has, on the reliance of explicit promises to him by the 
owner, laid out monies to purchase improvements for the affected 
property.

An example is when one builds extra buildings on a piece of land one was 
promised ownership on upon the owners death.  It is much related to the 
old Livery of Seisin which was used in the conveyance of land and is, in 
fact, a modern substitute for it.

There is little relevance between such and a licensee, one of many, who, 
for no outlay, had permission to use a piece of software. Permission 
which was later revoked.

> Similarly, based on the information you've provided, we are unable to
> locate facts which would support for your argument that any of the GPL
> licensed code here was granted that license without an exchange of
> valuable consideration.

The John Doe would have to prove that there was a contract, it is not 
me, the copyright holder, who's duty it is to show that there was none.
One cannot prove a negative. You know this very well.
It is the consideration (payment) that would create a contract which a 
licensee could attempt to rely upon.
Where there is no such consideration there is no contract.

Here the John Doe admitted that he simply downloaded the work and also 
admitted that there was no contract between him and I
"Thank God", he added.

This is attested to in the original complaint, the John Doe is quoted, 
and his testimony is linked.
However it is not my duty to prove to you that there is _not_ any 
consideration.

That is proving a negative. It is a duty of the John Doe's defense to 
prove that there is such a payment, which there is not.
I was never paid by the John Doe.

You are being completely disingenuous here. You think you are clever, 
but you will be sorry once my legal bill is being paid out of your 
personal expenses for your blatant copyright infringement of my work. 
The courts won't think you're "cute" or "clever".

I have addressed your claim that my signature was invalid. Your 
understanding of what is required of a signature and the purpose of a 
signature is incorrect. A signature simply shows assent of the party to 
the validity of the document. An X is sufficient. Here I have chosen to 
use my long-held pen name, MikeeUSA. I have also published these notices 
at the place of the publication of the work, to give further 
confirmation.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

Forewarned is forearmed.

Sincerely,
Signed,
--MikeeUSA--


On 2019-03-07 02:30, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
> 
> I've done my best to address your concerns below. Until you provide a
> complete DMCA takedown notice, we are unable to act on your request.
> 
>> My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
>> along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
>> to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
>> request.
> 
> As explained in our previous email, that is not the standard required
> by 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i).
> 
>> I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.
> 
> Based on the information you've provided, we are unable to determine
> that any valid license revocation has taken place here.
> 
>> A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable ...
>> An interest attaches when a licensee pays
>> the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits 
>> valuable
>> bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such 
>> anattached
>> interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.
> 
> Similarly, based on the information you've provided, we are unable to
> locate facts which would support for your argument that any of the GPL
> licensed code here was granted that license without an exchange of
> valuable consideration. Moreover, you have not addressed other
> doctrines, such as reliance or promissory estoppel, which would
> prevent revocation even in the absence of valuable consideration.
> 
>> The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US
>> Jurisprudence.
> 
> While they are in easily-missed footnotes, the linked article contains
> citations to three cases which support their respective underlying
> legal theories. Please note the article is provided for informational
> purposes, and GitHub is unable to give legal advice about open-source
> licensing or copyright questions.
> 
> If you would like to revise your notice to include the required
> details, please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the
> corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable DMCA notice,
> we will process it expeditiously.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> GitHub Staff

License revocation from GitHub and GitHub Staff (regarding GPC-Slots 2) Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

I have, at this moment, chosen to terminate any permissions GitHub and
the GitHub Staff have enjoyed regarding my protected work (GPC-Slots 2).

Any allowances GitHub (GH) and the GitHub Staff (staff) had regarding 
GPC-Slots 2
(the work) is hereby revocated, rescinded, and made null.

The allowances memorialized in the writing known as the "GPL" are
rescinded from GitHub and the GitHub staff.

I am not in privity of contract regarding the licensing and
distribution of GPC-Slots 2 with GitHub nor any of the GitHub staff,
nor have I ever been.

I have not been paid any good, value, or consideration for the
dispensation of the permissions.

The permissions are freely revocable by me, the Copyright Holder, in
furtherance of my pursuit of my various exclusive rights regarding the
work, none of which I have transferred or contracted away for value.

Should Git Hub or any member of the Git Hub Staff choose to defy my
wishes, regarding the work, I will seek remedy at my pleasure: both
against the corporate person and in their individual capacities.

Signed;
--MikeeUSA--

Note: I have posted this notice at the original place of download, of
the work, lest there be any contrived confusion regarding veracity of
person or pleasure.

GPL Is Revocable - 4chan discussion

[mikeeusa]

http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/70699483

Thought you might be interested.

Free Licenses are revocable by the Copyright holder.

[mikeeusa]

A defense against license revocation is the existence of a contractual 
relationship between the copyright-owner and the licensee.

However, where no such relationship exists, no such protection is 
apparent.

Obeying a preexisting legal duty (such as to not commit copyright 
infringement by using/modifying/etc a work without permission) is 
insufficient to create a contract.

Illusory promises are not binding upon the grantor.

For those who have chosen to not pay the Grantor of a "G" "P" "L" (GPL) 
license, the license can be revocated at the will of the copyright 
owner.

""retroactively""

Remeber: non-exclusive licenses do not transfer any rights. Only 
permissions (license), which can be revoked, and without a contractual 
agreement such revocations do not give rise to damages against the 
Copyright owner.

Nothing gets you nothing.

> WE'RE GOING TO DISBAR YOU, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE LICENSED FOR LONG.

Go fuck yourself, enemy.

http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/70789199






---



> Artifex!
In Artifex v. Hancom the court doesn't even correctly identify the GPL. 
It misconstrues the preliminary ("pay us for commercial license or use 
the GPL") writing (offer to do business) + the GPL as "The GPL".

Additionally in Artifex the situation is where the licensee decided NOT 
to pay and NOT to obey the GPL gratis license either, thus Violating the 
Contract the court construed created by the licensee "accepting" the 
preliminary writing / offer to do buisness ("Pay us OR GPL") (licensee 
chose : NEITHER! But I still USE! HAHA!").

The remedy is EITHER a breach of contract remedy (for not paying under 
the preliminary license) OR (and NOT BOTH) Copyright Damages for 
violating the license.

Copyright holder was given the option to decide.

This have little relevance to where a Copyright Owner allows gratis 
(free) licensees and then chose to withdraw/cancel/rescind the gratis 
licenses.

Regardless of what smoke FSF / SFLC and corp wish to blow up your ass.







---



> Not true, you enter an implicit contract the moment you start using a 
> product with a free license. Note that I've said product, not service. 
> Services can very much update their terms and conditions, and 
> frequently do so. Equally the creator can change the conditions and 
> licensing on updates or new versions of a product. You can't be revoked 
> a free license for a product you're already using though.

Incorrect, where the user has paid no fee (or service or action) to the 
copyright holder, there is nothing to support the existance of a 
contract where the user could hold the copyrightholder to the "terms". 
(IE: the free-taker attacking the hand that fed him)

The user MUST obey the license, but that is due to copyright law, not 
contracting law.

A court, may, at it's discretion, choose not to enforce the Copyright 
Holder's lawful rights under equity, of course, and may indeed do so for 
a lay user (a consumer). The use allowance would likely only extend to 
actual use of the software: not modification and public distribution.

(So-far, one must note, the courts only did so for commercial software 
for paying customers, some 1990s cases)

The Copyright Holder can prevent the use of its code in new versions of 
the product, aswell as new distribution of "old" versions of it's code 
(IE: pressing new CDs containing the now-withdrawn code (or 
new-downloads of said withdrawn code)). Shops that have old linux 
distributions with stock of old linux CDs would likely be-able to still 
sell that stock, however modification and distribution of the withdrawn 
code would not be allowed by the user of such.

The Copyright owner has not transfered his interest in controlling the 
distribution and modification, etc of his work. He has simply allowed it 
to occur, free of charge. That can end at any time.

The FSF requires a transfer of copyright for this very reason, 
regardless of what other surface excuses they give as excuses (which 
almost seem like fraud-in-the-inducement, honestly)




---


>> 70752638
>    Did you go to a legitimate law school or did you study law all by 
> yourself?
Legitimate law school. My professors from the school agree that free 
licenses do not create a contract, and the license is revocable: They 
take it as a matter of course: it's obvious on it's face.


>> 70752641
> That's not how licensing works, you fucking idiot.
Yes it is. You are thinking of commercial copyright license contracts, 
which is what your handbooks inform you on. The entirety of the 
"irrevocability" argument you find therein is the existance of a 
contract between the grantor and the licensee, which binds both to the 
terms. With free licenses no such contract exists, due to a lack of 
consideration on the part of the licensee; and no: "I promise to not 
violate your copyright" is not valid consideration as it is a 
pre-existing legal duty.

Other lawyers who have expressed similar opinions are David McGowan and 
Lawrence Rosen, in addition to Kumar (author to a rather famous paper on 
the subject).

Lawyers who have concretely stated otherwise are:
No one. The best you get is a highly couched statement of dissimulation 
from one Red Hat attorney who was hired by the Software Freedom 
Conservancy.

More recently the Male Red Hat attorneys put out a statement that 
tacitly acknowleges revocation as a danger from "judgement proof" 
individuals (IE: pennyless, unemployed, NEETs, who can't be fired from 
the job they don't have in retaliation, and hold no recoverables (thus 
the threat of protacted litigation and legal fees during holds no sway 
over them)), individuals who happen to make up a sizeable portion of 
Open Source copyright holders.

>> 70753928
> Oh man, I'd fuck Yotsugi.

>> 70753918
> cute doll

Correct

>> 70753935
> why make this thread every day?
Because you do not like this thread yet.






---



>> 70762568
>    This is why you either do not accept contributions at all or use a 
> CLA.
Exactly.

Which the FSF has _ALWAYS_ required.
It is linus that changed this tone, and linux did profit from it with 
much more programmers than it otherwise would have had.

Any statement by the FSF etc to the contrary is simply trying to give 
free cover to linux etc for a problem the FSF didn't actually create. 
Very generous of them, but not legally accurate.







---








>> 70766437
> Promissory estoppel.

Promissory estopple is an equitable defense, used when a heir is 
promised land, then improves the land outlay of monies, and then the 
estate denies him title. In this area it's related to the ancient livery 
of seizin, and without reference to that would not have been accepted by 
the courts in the first place.

Another area it's used is when a worker would otherwise be dispossessed 
of his rightful renumeration because of some failure in contract 
formation, the courts sometimes use promissory estopple to get the 
promissor to not stiff the contract worker. Here it's similar to quantum 
meruit in a way, or quazi contact theories.

A third time it's used is when a father promises a daughter something, 
the courts felt bad for the daughter (a woman, duh) and estopped the 
father from not giving her money.

In the first and third case it involves a family member and a one to one 
promise from the estate holder. In the second case it involves a worker 
who did the work and was about to get screwed.

In no cases has it involved non-exclusive "promises" to random 
unidentified strangers involving software licenses.






---







>> 70765621
     I would never earn a dime from it. The best case scenario is that 2 
trillion dollars worth of value vanishes from the economy with the 
revocation of the linux kernel permissions by the copyright holders.

     Which they CAN do if they chose to.





---







     I want everyone to understand that "promissory estopple" is the LAST 
port of call for a dying contract, and it is NOT a defense at law: it is 
a defense in equity.

     Every time a delinquent apartment dweller gets thrown out of their 
apartment they claim "promissory estopple". The court might give them a 
few more months to pack their things.

     When the other side rests their case on promissory estopple that 
means they have no case at law: they are simply going to beg the court 
"THIS IS NOT FAIR, PLEASE DO NOT ENFORCE THE LAWFUL RIGHTS OF THE 
PLAINTIFF AGAINST ME". It is at the courts discretion to enforce your 
rights or not, and since self-help is not allowed anymore in most cases, 
if the court won't help you you're not getting any help.

     What the other side is saying here is that the court should just 
simply give you the apartment. That it is "fair" that they get to 
convert your property to their property, for nothing, because.

     Since the other side is a bunch of "_women_" and 
"_supporters_of_women_" perhaps they have a super strong case that they 
should effectively own YOUR copyrights, MMMAALLLEESSS.







---






>> 70766513
> Also, the consideration here would be the right to work on the project, 
> which is good and valuable because of the reputation, experience, etc. 
> which comes from contributing code.

Linus needed permission from nobody to contribute code to himself.

Consideration, to be valid, must be bargained-for consideration. 
Non-bargained for consideration is no consideration at all. Those 
copyright holders who licensed their patches under the GPL, did not 
necessarily seek fame, reputation, etc, and such was not promised by the 
linux project to those programmers in exchange for the licensing of the 
code. There was no exchange of bargained-for consideration.

> Thanks for playing, anon.
Sorry snaky fuck, I've researched this far more than you, am an 
attorney, and can cite 3 other attorneys who have published papers and 
books recognizing that the GPL is revocable.








---







>> 70791852
By law the rights one has to anothers work, by default, are: nothing. 
You cannot modify the work, you cannot distribute the work, you cannot 
make derivative works of the work, you cannot copy the work.

You have a pre-existing legal duty to obey copyright law.

The owner of the work then grants you permission to: modify the work, 
distribute the work, create derivatives based on the work, distribute 
derivative works based on the work.

He is not agreeing to any contract with you. He is stating how he will 
allow you to use his property.

You "agreeing" to abide by his instructions regarding his property is 
not "consideration" as it is a pre-existing legal duty if you want to 
use/modify/distribute the work at all.

See the images: >>70791847 >>70791638
Or read: >>70791578




---





>> 70792249
Wrongo. Without paying consideration, the free licensee cannot hold the 
licensor to any promise not to revoke.




---



>> 70792239
> suiseiseki is best doll
She's kinda mean to the MC, I like her alot ofcourse, but I think her 
sister abit more.

> ...do people no realize this? If you didn't sign a legally-binding 
> contract, you probably aren't under a legally-binding contract?

They will simply ignore you. They want something for nothing. Basically 
they want to commit the tort of conversion against the copyright owner 
and have the courts agree to that.


See: Pre-existing duty rule, and Illusory Promise

The licensee only has license to use the work so-long as the licensor 
does not revoke that permission. Since the licensee has not secured his 
interest, he has no defense at law to revocation.






---



>> 70792280
> "quote"
> Let's libel David McGowan, Lawrence Rosen, and Sapnar Kumar now!

>> https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
>> https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237

Those three attorneys are correct on the GPL. No one has ever been able 
to come up with a paper refuting them. (And no the couched words at the 
FSF do not count: logically those "updates" don't actually say anything, 
but a non-lawyer wouldn't understand). Eben Moglen, over half a year ago 
claimed he would write a paper showing the GPL irrevocable (see lkml 
mailing list)... we're still waiting.








---




>> 70793195
Yes, I am a US attorney, I am talking about US law.

>> 70793199
Oh the 9th circuit non-binding dicta where they wax poetically in the 
middle of the decision for a page an a half about how they love linux, 
and then rule exactly the opposite in the actual opinion. Yea I've read 
that case.. and the thing is... I'm an attorney so I know what 
non-binding dicta is. And you don't, because you're not.

Still doesn't matter: that "consideration" wasn't bargained for. You 
giving something that that someone doesn't want and didn't ask for 
doesn't suffice as consideration.






---





>> 70793247
> Why is THAT possible and not
Because you did not pay.
It's that simple.

If you did pay for a license, and there are specific conditions 
regarding revocation, the courts in the 90s decided that if you were a 
consumer, it would hold the commercial entity that sold you that license 
to those terms equally, because your purchase of the license was 
consideration.

When you get a license for free, there is no consideration.

"But I PROMISED to only modify/distribute/etc the work in accordance to 
the permission granted to me by the copyright holder, isn't that a 
Promise for a Promise".

No: That's a pre-existing duty. You have no right, outside of the owners 
consent, to modify, distribute, create derivative works. You do have a 
DUTY to obey US Copyright Law, and not violate his copyright. Only his 
permission allows you to do these things regarding his work: so you 
assenting to his "gift" of permission is not a detriment against you. No 
consideration there.

> some entrapment of sorts?
Applies only to police vs criminal situations (criminal law), not civil 
law.






---





>> 70793313
The lay idiots here
1) Think the 9th circuits' opinion is binding on the whole of the USA
2) Think the 9th circuit ruled on the issue (it did not: that is 
non-binding dicta, it's not even binding on the lower courts)
3) Don't notice that the 9th circuit court of appeals, a few pages 
later, ruled in the opposite direction of it's dicta and found NO 
contract: only bare copyright license, and sent the case back down to 
the lower court.

Additionally, even if there were all those "nice" things the Copyright 
Owner was allegedly receiving (things made of thin air, which are 
worthless: the 9th circuit is said to be "a bunch of woman worshiping 
faggots", as we all know, (like all white men (regardless of 
religion))), if the Copyright Owner didn't seek such things, didn't 
bargain for them, there is STILL no valid consideration.

You can't just hand me something I don't want and didn't ask you for and 
claim you satisfied contract formation.

Yet that is what all the white boys here are claiming.







---




>> 70793438
>> 70793336
> > When you get a license for free, there is no consideration.

> So if you provide a free cubic meter of concrete during house 
> construction in the USA, you can later turn around and reclaim that 
> free cubic meter of concrete even if the house collapses?

That would be a gift, not a license. A license is permission. A gift is 
a transfer.

> If someone presents you money, they can reclaim it the day after you 
> spent it because it was "no consideration"? Lel.

Depends on the terms of the loan. You do know creditor law, correct?

> > Applies only to police vs criminal situations (criminal law), not civil law.
> Seriously?
You can beg the court not to enforce someone legal right immediatly, 
this is done all the time in apartment disputes, the court might give 
you a few more months to move out when you cry under Equity (not law) 
"HE PROMISED! IT'S NOT FAIR". Depends on if you're a white woman or not. 
Blacks get treated like shit regardless of gender, men get treated like 
shit regardless of race.

> Your civil law has no analogous protections (even if they're not called 
> entrapment legally)?

It's called a contract, but to have one you need to give the other 
person something that they bargained with you for. Nothing gets you 
nothing; it's very fair.


>> 70793474
Opensource licenses are never litigated unless there is a corollary 
agreement that can provide for monies.
IE: "Hey, you can pay us for a commercial license, or use the GPL" etc. 
People who give things away for free don't have money for lawyers, 
additionally if they didn't register their copyright before the 
violation, even if a same-similar violation occurs after registration 
from the same party, they can still only get damages (no statutory 
damages, not attorneys fees).

The damages for a thing costing nothing is nothing, usually.





---






>> 70793484
> A Court's decision influences other Courts. If another Federal Court 
> brings up a similar case they will look to this case and probably rule 
> similarly.

Do you know what non binding dicta is?
Nothing was ruled upon regarding the GPL's revocability in that case.


> My main reason for bringing that case up is that the Court upheld the 
> license's conditions as valid. That should work both ways if the 
> conditions were valid that means any line that says >>70791519 is also 
> valid.

No. The court held that the license was not a contract, that it was only 
a copyright license. Meaning that the licensee was duty-bound to obey 
the license, and if he chose to impinge upon the Owner's federal 
copyright rights outside of the license, he was committing copyright 
infringement and damages as such were obtainable.

The court ruled that the license was _not_ a contract (the violator 
wanted it ruled a contract so he could get away with just whatever the 
contract damages would be, which would be much less than statutory 
damages + attorney's fees, or profit damages) and sent the case back 
down to the lower court to dispose of it properly.

Did you even read the case?



---






>> 70793784
Looks like you missed this: >>70789214
shit for brains.

The printer driver company sued some violator, the court said the 
violator either had to pay the printer driver company the asked-for 
commercial license fee, or suffer damages under federal copyright law, 
and it was the printer driver's decision which way it wanted to go: 
pretend the violator simply had a commercial license contract and failed 
to pay, or find them to be violating the copyright because they didn't 
abide by the GPL. IE: commercial license contract OR no commercial 
license contract, copyright infringement instead.

This was not a case of a copyright holder rescinding a license from a 
free-taker who wasn't asked for nor did tender any consideration.

Also the court didn't even correctly identify "The GPL" and took "The 
GPL" to be the commercial copyright license offer + the (actual) gpl.

Sorry kid, try again. The FSF (and bruce perens) is blowing smoke up 
your ass once again.

> Google requires 20 more captchas... really doesn't like this thead. 
> FUCK YOU GOOGLE WOMAN WORSHIPING FAGGOTS: THE GPL ____IS_____ REVOCABLE 
> FROM FREE TAKERS




---


>> 70793810
     Nope. If the licensee wishes to distribute the work at all, he must 
do so only with the copyright owners permission.

     The copyright owner is not allowing distribution sans-license text.

     The licensee has no pre-existing right to distribute the work, nor 
derivatives of the work.






>> 70793828
     The owner can revoke permission to distribute, make derivatives, 
make copys, of his work at his will, unless the licensee has secure 
rights otherwise.

     The licensee secures said rights by entering into a valid copyright 
license contract, supported by valid consideration.

     Of which there is none for the free-taker.

     "I will not distribute your property in a way I am not permitted to" 
is not valid consideration.

     >20 bicycles later











>> 70793941
It does not matter what the license promises, at all.

You did not pay valid valuable bargained for consideration to the 
licensee: you cannot rely on those statements.

It is an Illusory Promise.
You "agreeing" to those "terms" is not valid consideration because such 
is subject to the Pre-Existing Duty Rule. You have no right to do 
anything regarding the property without the owner's permission, agreeing 
to abide by the owner's rules regarding his property is simply a duty 
you must follow if you do not wish to violate the Copyright statute. You 
have a pre-existing duty to obey applicable laws.

> Myriads of storefronts and crosswalks later







---






>> 70793958
> A license is what it says it is.
Yes, permission. Permission that can be revoked by the owner of the 
thing being licensed, unless there exists some secured interest against 
him doing so.

> You are licensed to use that work by the author provide that you agree 
> to abide by the conditions.
As long as he wishes for you to do so. If he chooses to end that 
permission he can do so at any time, unless you have a valid secured 
interest against him doing so: by having a valid contract backed by 
bargained for valid consideration.

> The author cannot revoke your access for no reason if there's literally 
> a section that that says it's irrevocable.
Yes they can. Without a contract that is an illusary promise. 
Non-binding on the grantor.

If you want it to be binding: pay him something he's asking for, and not 
something you already have a duty to do or preclude yourself from doing 
absent permission.


Or let >>70791638 Yotsugi and >>70791847 Yotsuba explain it to you.

Or how about Sapna Kumar:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/







---


>> 70794023
They won't listen because they are lay idiots, or opposing counsel.

>> 70794036
1: that is non-binding dicta, in a case involving the artistic license.

2: the court ruled against what you think the dicta suggests, ruling 
that the artistic license was not a contract, and was instead a BARE 
copyright license.

3: If you did not ask for "fame bla bla bla" and X gives you "fame bla 
bla bla", that "consideration" he tendered you is NOT VALID because YOU 
DID NO REQUEST IT.

Sapna Kumar's paper touches upon this, seems you didn't bother to read 
it.

Now, last time I checked, GPLv2, even GPLv3, did not ask for "fame and 
recognition" in exchange for "freeloaders doing whatever they want with 
my copyrighted work, forever and ever amen".

There is no consideration. Bullshit consideration is not allowed by many 
courts either ("Hey, I gave him a pen! For this 100,000,000 dollar 
mansion" 'Oh looks like a estate tax dodge' --Court), so the 9th circuit 
can wax poetically all it wants, it doesn't make it so in the rest of 
the country (even though YOU THINK IT DOES), and doesn't make it so even 
in their circuit (because they did not rule on it).






---





>> 70794077
> How does that the requirement to distribute the license text with the 
> work is a Pre-Existing Duty?

You have no pre-existing right to distribute the work, you only have 
permission, by the copyright holder, to distribute it in the way he has 
instructed. If you do not do it in the way he has instructed, but do so 
in some other way, it is simply a violation of his right of distribution 
under the Copyright statute.

You must obey the Copyright statute.

You promising to obey the law is not valid consideration.

"You may distribute my work in this way"
Is purely a gratuity to you.
It is more than "You may not distribute my work at all"





---







---


>> 70775710
> ITT: Redditors with Reddit spacing pretend they are lawyers who know 
> anything about copyright law.
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237

Read up.



---

>>> 70794074
> So this is what he meant when he said libre.
     Yes. Free works both ways: you are free from payment, and also free 
from rights.

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
request.

This is the very spot that the John Doe has obtained the work.

Secondly it is my exclusive right, as the copyright holder, to control
the distribution of the work as I see fit, and to control the creation
and distribution of derivatives of the work.

I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.

An exclusive right of mine has been violated by the John Doe 
subsequently,
and with notice of the revocation.

A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable in the
United States of America. An interest attaches when a licensee pays
the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable
bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such an 
attached
interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.

Here the John Doe did neither, and does not hold an attached interest
with which to bind me to any supposed promise. Any such promise is 
illusory.

Additionally, the acknowledgement and assent regarding a per-existing
legal duty is not valid consideration.

The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US 
Jurisprudence.

In the Artifex v Hancom cited by proponents of the "GPL is a contract 
(and always a contract)" view much is made of this proclamation by the 
lower court in the 9th circuit:
  >"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides 
that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not 
obtain a commercial license."

This is patently false. The GPL contains no such language, The offer to 
do business on the plaintiff's website (regarding the Artifex case) DOES 
contain such language The court conflates that language into "the GPL" 
in this case. The GPL, in fact, declares the the user does not have to 
agree to any of it's terms.

I invite you to consult this learned treatise:
(1) 
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
In addition to ENFORCING THE GNU GPL by Sapna Kumar (page 16)
(2) http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
Legal Implications of Open-Source Software by David McGowan, Professor 
of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
(3) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=249130

All of which explain in concise terms, easily understandable by the lay 
person, why the GPL is revocable from non-paying licensees.

I am an attorney, and I reiterate my demands.
Signed;
--MikeeUSA--



On 2019-02-20 20:10, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
> 
> Unfortunately, a pen name does not suffice when used in combination
> with a disposable email address. Whether under the definition in 15
> U.S.C 7006(5) which you cited, or as used in the DMCA, an electronic
> signature needs to be associated with a person, as that term is
> defined by 15 U.S.C. 7006(8). A psuedonym, without other information
> that would allow us to associate that with a specific, identifiable
> person, does not meet 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i)'s requirement that it be
> signed by an authorized person. As a practical matter, this is
> especially necessary where, as you claim, an account that may not be
> you is posting content using that same pseudonym.
> 
> Even if that were not so, your notice would still be incomplete in two
> other ways.
> 
> First, it lacks "information reasonably sufficient to permit the
> service provider to contact the complaining party," as you've used a
> disposable email address and provided no other contact information
> that would be sufficient to assure we can contact the complaining
> party. This type of reliable contact information is required by 17
> U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(iv).
> 
> Second, your notice does not appear to identify material which
> infringes on any exclusive rights in the original work. Both your
> source code and the repositories you identified are published under
> GPL licenses. You have not identified any way in which those
> repositories violate the GPL, and without more detail we cannot
> determine how redistributing or modifying GPL-licensed code would
> constitute infringing activity. While GitHub is not in a position to
> provide you with legal advice, here is an informative link about the
> irrevocability of GPL licenses:
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
> 
> Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we
> will process it expeditiously.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> GitHub Staff