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 2315FC282C3 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:48:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABAD20879 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:48:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redchan.it header.i=@redchan.it header.b="sS6FCqmW" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728537AbfAVNsH (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:48:07 -0500 Received: from cock.li ([185.100.85.212]:50436 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728463AbfAVNsH (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 08:48:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=redchan.it; s=mail; t=1548164884; bh=qEe90IUm6+Bd6IXL/YWzX3ayRknawBL0c2/ak0eJIcc=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=sS6FCqmWy/rqdTJKE/SzMbrCWul7v7ME7FvSl8SJNCIlZEXNP4QXnqCyzv+uvl7u0 06AwvnfWdR3tes2rZy2rRPkch4NDipA3BguOvI0BT398GvcOvkfWDofQ3M4aG9Lsoz 1huLdfr6yDdRUKHIydxeYizDWAy4O7UrFYY7qYBPFEY8K4gqmvYqS63rzLQ1s/pt8Y W2TpGD9CheEXHbO9pjaHn6/BMinP4Ty5WUjubHyPnUaBXx10rfYYJ0y+s9k31ZiZXs ijZvAhrOSvj36OitBvfssWNbHqzfabngYbdJTUCJ8fCNJMYGTpYbTiIRSXuLqW7sQ9 7FxHDFWtr7KZQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:48:03 +0000 From: sicevar@redchan.it To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: GPL revocation (GPC-Slots 2): Alex "Skud" Bayley, Leigh Honeywell Message-ID: <8523020ca6a3da1f324087e201bb368f@redchan.it> X-Sender: sicevar@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 Quote: " > Then you should have used them. Not necessary, the language used in the press release identifies them easily. > should As if I somehow can't just rescind using their names either. License to use/modify/etc the GPC Slots 2 code is hereby terminated for. Alex "Skud" Bayley, and Leigh Honeywell. (Note: this termination is not to be construed as a lifting of the previously issued termination regarding the "Geek Feminism collective", this termination is an addendum) --MikeeUSA-- (electronic signature :D ) >> 1019403 Their response is irrelevant. " Discussions with author of program involved: http://8ch.net/tech/res/1013409.html http://8ch.net/tech/res/1017824.html http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html ------------------------ https://slashdot.org/submission/9087542/author-recinds-gpl ------------------------ 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.