>>Any Forums87984539 >And their unilateral revocation of the license is likely just as illegal as revoking the gpl3 for somone you don't like would be. You still have to spend years in the courts to prove it either way. Gpl3 software doesn't magically make it so the creator cant sure you.
Wrong: The "we won't revoke from anyone" clause in the GPLv3 is an illusory promise.
IE: It is not effective against the grantor except in cases where you paid for the license. Since you are a free-loader you are not protected by that "promise".
It is as if someone "promised" to give you their house for free, or "promised" to allow you to sit on their porch and bake grills (made of aluminium but spraypainted gold) for they homies.
It's worth nothing. You didn't pay for that promise. It is illusory.
>And their unilateral revocation of the license is likely just as illegal as revoking the gpl3 for somone you don't like would be. You still have to spend years in the courts to prove it either way. Gpl3 software doesn't magically make it so the creator cant sure you.
Wrong: you, as a free-taker, do not have any rights vs the grantor of the license:
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).
The GPL is revocable. Be it the GPL2, GPL3, any of the rest (BSD etc).
And your "promise" to "obey the license" is not consideration either: as it is a pre-existing duty of yours to obey copyright and property law. (Not that you ever made any such promise to begin with; freeloader piece of shit)
> >Nothing stops an open source retard from banning you from using the engine. >They there is. See: GPLv3
Wrong. The GPLv3's "we won't revoke" clause is not applicable against the grantor by a free-taker. It is an illusory promise.
>>>CITATION >>>SOOORRRCCCEEEE
Read: 128 F.3d 872, 882 Read: 344 F.3d 446, 451
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).
>128 F.3d 872, 882 >and >344 F.3d 446, 451 >("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).
>ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1592&context=faculty_scholarship >For the same reason, a licensee's commitment to use offered software in a particular way cannot constitute consideration. Because the licensee has no right prior to the license to use the software in any way, a grant of only limited uses of it is merely a gift. The fact that the giver could have been even more generous by granting use of the software with no restrictions does not alter this conclusion. It is still the case that the licensee has not given up anything. Only if the licensee gives up some right, says contract law, will there be valid consideration.
>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 >amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/013148787
> [...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases > code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will. > --David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
>However, nonexclusive licenses are revocable (meaning the copyright owner can revoke the license at any time) in the absence of consideration.
Connor Robinson
spambot posting to the wrong board?
Christian Robinson
>>What stops FOSS from doing this >That it gives you the code and you can fork the project under a new name and keep going.
Wrong. What you have is permission to use the copyright holder's copyrighted works. He can revoke this permission from you at any time.
Unless you have a contract or he has transfered the copyright to you (and even then he or his family can eventually claw it back using statutory means) He has not transfered the copyright to you. And you are not in a contract with him.
He can revoke it. And then you no longer have permission to use that code.
Now: you have the physical POWER to use that code: just as you have the physical POWER to build machine guns etc. Just not the "right".
Opensource used to be hackers. We didn't care about the law. Nor did we care about transfaggots, feminist women, or old women.
Oliver Jenkins
>spambot posting to the wrong board?
I was here before you. Since 1997. Get the FUCK out.
Either that or an dev who's mad because xer's game about a brave MtF tranny standing up to the patriarchy can no longer use their drag-and-drop "I don't need to code to make a game" engine
Fuck off retard. Go to some normie website you fucking cunt.
>Jacobsen v. Katzer Have you read Jacobsen v. Katzer? The 9th circuit appellate court ruled that the Artistic License was /not/ a contract, and was instead a simple copyright license. It found that the lower court erred in construing the Artistic License as a contract, and reversed the lower courts finding: telling the lower court that the Artistic License is not a contract.
That is, if anything, supportive of the "revokists" position. >Artifex v. Hancom Have you read Artifex v. Hancom? In Artifex, a lower court decision in the 9th circuit, the court failed to properly identify the GPL, instead confusing "The GPL" with the preliminary offer to do business which gave the prospective licensee an option of a paid proprietary license contract or the GPL. The court in Artifex gave the copyright holder the option of proceeding on a contract law claim of damages, with regards to the offer of the proprietary license contract OR (but not both) to proceed on a federal copyright violation claim for violation of the GPL copyright license. If the GPL itself was a contract, the court would require the copyright holder to proceed under a contract law claim only. (They like to limit damages when they can). The parties elected to settle, and the case went no further.
Jeff Read: Please explain your position, and please do not confuse dicta with ruling. Do you understand what a federal circuit is, and that the rulings in one affect only that circuit? Do you understand what dicta is? Did you read Jacobson to the end. Did you notice what the defendant wanted? Did you notice what the ruling in Jacobson was?
When the matrix glitches like this and the curtain is pulled back momentarily an icy chill snakes through my stomach
Charles Gonzalez
Grsecurity is violating the Linux Kernel copyright and the GCC copyright. By adding additional restrictions not placed by the original copyright holders (ie: no redistribution clause in the codicil it demands its customers sign). Grsecurity is a non-seperable derivative work of the linux kernel, aswell as gcc (the "plugins" grsecurity has written for it, also under the no-redistribution codicil)
>So mail a penny to the rights holder. If they don't send it back, you have a contact.
No you do not: as they did not ask for a penny. Stupid fucking retard. They didn't ask for anything. Learn what consideration is. (Bargained for consideration).
The rights-holders didn't "bargain for" your penny: they didn't ask for it: they didn't tell you to pay them X for this license. They just put up a sign: free licenses.
Just as you cannot go up to a land owner who put up a sign "free use of land for beer-halling"; give them a penny; and then say "you can never kick me out".
Brayden Powell
What is Any Forums autism doing on my Any Forums
Kayden Reyes
some jannie moved this nerds thread to Any Forums as punishment for being unbearable even by Any Forums standards.
Benjamin Kelly
Xer got lost and is afraid to ask for directions because of the smell from its shit-slit
lolololololol you absolutely deserved to get wrecked schizo hahahahaha
William Sanders
>Wrong. What you have is permission to use the copyright holder's copyrighted works. He can revoke this permission from you at any time. No, they can change the permissions but everyone who agreed to the previous permissions can keep on using it under the original permissions. None of the open source licenses have provisions for regretting the permission.
Forks that continue under the original license happen all the time when a project changes license and there is nothing the original author can do about that.
Oliver Jenkins
Ngl, i kinda like it. I should have gone sleep i while ago and this is my last trip before going to sleep i guess.
Adam Cook
>some jannie moved this nerds thread to Any Forums as punishment for being unbearable even by Any Forums standards.
Get off of our website. We made this website: and all others. This is an anime and pro-child bride website.
Not a >FURRRRR KILL ALL PEDOS >MILLLSTONE >JEEESSSUSSSSSSSS >OBEY JESYSS
Website. Jesus said "chop off your dick". You fucking faggot. YHWH is God. Not Jesus. YHWH allows child brides.
>No, they can change the permissions but everyone who agreed to the previous permissions can keep on using it under the original permissions. None of the open source licenses have provisions for regretting the permission.
Wrong. Those licenses are revocable.
>Forks that continue under the original license happen all the time when a project changes license and there is nothing the original author can do about that. WRONG. Those licenses can be revoked.
You do not OWN the copyright: you only have permissions. A license. You do NOT have a contract because you haven't paid anything.
Since you do not have a contract: the license is not binding ON THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER: AND THEY MAY RECIND IT.
And yes I am a lawyer. And yes all other lawyers I've talked to agree. Including copyright lawyers.
Get the FUCK off of OUR website you FUCKING piece of SHIT.
YHWH explicitly allows child brides. This is an anime website. The Russians will kill you just as they've killed any other useful idiots. And we will help them: and then be killed ourselves. Since we have no future in your woman worshiping world.
>Wrong. Those licenses are revocable. No they can not, the original license texts are worded to make them perpetiual. >And yes I am a lawyer. In that case you should know the term "Pacta sunt servanda" which applies here and makes me correct and you wrong.
