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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 348F7C43387 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 06:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A452070D for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 06:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=memeware.net header.i=@memeware.net header.b="JCjgBo4A" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726592AbfADG5D (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jan 2019 01:57:03 -0500 Received: from cock.li ([185.100.85.212]:57042 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726141AbfADG5D (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jan 2019 01:57:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=memeware.net; s=mail; t=1546585020; bh=lIUAFyA3qxp9VNmRlAq8MH7Ypis1iKWdXinUxfw5m04=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=JCjgBo4AmBs3elyXRs45wvE7KTW9e+/CZLSYgmju7Ny0XOhnn+L41q5DP9Mgvdsxi za/lzLg9248o9l/aRgoWeVDyER/ju9PHuJS1HHOq7TOWn4jS0tjHgDGvZ4fpx5hazy JCUz94LCY88f8L7Wm86gSDNo7mgVBgXlrDgmLzDwgOhLIKT2n4rEwPVjUdoPmJLaSM xCNG+Ttu5Q2Ri4hNNz+Op3db+F2a9Dn4Z7HcyKdw3p8y8Xedt9ODZSPPvELGLSiX+c MK0BMrGJ/czkzxgyHB0HI9SaDuKuMe/WzSDGg1GZNuHljWm6Gi0Z080sSK1An4ZBRA mbFkNyGf+pETQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 06:56:59 +0000 From: vnsndalce@memeware.net To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org, ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com, debian-user@lists.debian.org Cc: rms@gnu.org, freebsd-women@freebsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, esr@thyrsus.com, moglen@columbia.edu Subject: Software distribution licenses are not "irrevocable as a rule" Message-ID: X-Sender: vnsndalce@memeware.net 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 >> 1016160 > The difference between you and them is that you believe that the GPL > requires consideration between licensee and grantor to be revocable. > Everybody else in the SFConverancy and the LKML disagree, a software > distribution license is non-revocable. Incorrect. The SFConverancy tries to construe the clause I cited earlier as a promise not to revoke, thus inducing, by their argument, a reasonable reliance on the part of the taker that the permission will not be revoked. THAT is their argument. That clause is not what they pro-port it to be, nor would it be effective if not contracted for. It is not reasonable to rely on a term that you paid no consideration to the grantor for. > a software distribution license is non-revocable. Absolutely wrong. There is no such rule. What you are thinking of, and you hinted at previously by calling the license a commercial license, is ... indeed, commercial software licenses where the taker pays consideration to the grantor. In those cases, where there is a clause regarding revocation of the license, where the taker has payed for that license, the courts construe the contract to be one where those terms are not revocable because they are supported by the consideration the taker payed to the grantor. THAT is why commercial software licensing contracts "are irrevocable". Go read the cases. The fact that the consumer actually payed for the license is the deciding factor. He payed, he keeps what he payed for. You did not pay? You did not pay linux coder 729 who is still a copyright holder to his code? Well your "interest" is unsupported as regards to that piece of linux coder 729's property.