Licenses and revocability, in a paragraph or less.

Licenses and revocability, in a paragraph or less.

[freedomfromruin]

As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
"Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified 
durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This 
means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or 
without cause." +

Version 2 of the GPL specifies no duration, nor does it declare that it 
is non-revocable by the grantor.

(Also note: A perpetual license may violate the rule against 
perpetuities in various jurisdictions where it is applied not only to 
real property but additionally to personal property (and the like), 
which is why the GPL-3's term of duration is set as the duration of 
copyright on the program (and not "forever"))

+[https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2013/02/the-terms-revocable-and-irrevocable-in-license-agreements-tips-and-pitfalls]

Re: Licenses and revocability, in a paragraph or less.

[Eric S. Raymond]

freedomfromruin@aaathats3as.com <freedomfromruin@aaathats3as.com>:
> As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
> "Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified
> durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This means
> that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or without
> cause." +

Furthermore, license revocation is not the only option. In Jacobsen
vs. Katzer (535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) it was found that
open-source developers have an actionable right not to have their
software misappropriated even though the resulting damages are only
reputational rather than monetary.

Under that theory, developers can seek an injunction against a
misappropriating party without globally revoking their license.
The application of that case law to this situation is left as
an easy exercise for the reader.  Any competent paralegal could
write the brief in an evening. Hell, I could almost do it myself.

I do not personally want to see this happen.  But that it is possible
is a fact all parties must deal with.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.

Re: Licenses and revocability, in a paragraph or less.

[freedomfromruin]

It is imperative that the people know their rights so that they are not 
taken advantage of by moneyed interests.

For those who are dispossessed there are remedies at law and in equity.

Here we have a situation where moneyed interests have found a social 
exploit to leverage into ascendancy, while
those who created the edifice which they have willed to conquer are shut 
out.

On 2018-09-28 03:56, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> freedomfromruin@aaathats3as.com <freedomfromruin@aaathats3as.com>:
>> As has been stated in easily accessible terms elsewhere:
>> "Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified
>> durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This 
>> means
>> that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or 
>> without
>> cause." +
> 
> Furthermore, license revocation is not the only option. In Jacobsen
> vs. Katzer (535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) it was found that
> open-source developers have an actionable right not to have their
> software misappropriated even though the resulting damages are only
> reputational rather than monetary.
> 
> Under that theory, developers can seek an injunction against a
> misappropriating party without globally revoking their license.
> The application of that case law to this situation is left as
> an easy exercise for the reader.  Any competent paralegal could
> write the brief in an evening. Hell, I could almost do it myself.
> 
> I do not personally want to see this happen.  But that it is possible
> is a fact all parties must deal with.