Why has Eben Moglen been silent over these last two months after declaring that he will "correct" those saying that copyright holders could rescind.
Why does everyone say "this is wrong, but we won't lower ourselves to explain how/why".
Is it because they are full of shit?
There is no attached interest. The grant is gratuitous. :. It can be freely revoked.
Just like any property license.
"But if they promised they wouldn't revoke and we reasonably relied upon that we have this state law affirmative defense". They didn't, you can't reasonably rely on what doesn't exist, (note: the case would be removed to federal court as it relates back to a federal case or controversy.), and still no consideration was payed to the rights-holder for this supposed forbearance..
Why is it that I have explained the law, and I'm "WRONG", where as Eben Moglen and others have NOT explained their claims and they're "RIGHT".
And why is no one talking about this anymore. Why is it that they can simply make declarations and it is "Correct" but when I explain the black-letter law, and refute any cases that are brought up, I am "Wrong".
Please explain this to me, I do not understand. And why is there silence now?
Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor. Raul Miller rauldmiller at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 16:02:08 UTC 2018
Previous message (by thread): Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor. Next message (by thread): Reason for RedHat purchase 30 pct over market cap Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
(1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists.
(2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, because of (1))...
(3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making these mistakes.
Thanks,
-- Raul
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM wrote:
Jaxson Richardson
Notice they never successfully refute the argument that with Linux the GPLv2 is a bare license, with no attached interest to bind the grantor, that is freely revocable by the grantor thusly.
That is the black-letter law. They just say "nu uh, you wrong, and I'll not LOWER myself to explain, mysoginist mmmaaallleee scum"
I'm not wrong. There is not even an affirmative state-law defense of reliance since there was no promise not to revoke (not that that is a sure defense, absent a payment for such a forbearance or a reasonable reliance on such a promise)
There is nothing to bind the grantor. Nothing.
And yet they keep saying "nu uh, you're wrong, and not a lawyer, and should be locked up for practicing law without a license"
James Price
Message Body Bruce Perens :
The anonymous person is generally thought to have appeared on the net previously as MikeeUSA. That entity has a well-recorded history of misogyny and other anti-social behaviour. He's also complained to me recently that because of "people like me", the law prohibits him from marrying very young women. I mean single-digit young. Although he is not at all meritorious of your civil behavior, you may not wish to lower yourself to his level.
I strongly doubt it. I've had my own run-in with MikeeUSA; I remember it vividly and unpleasantly. The prose style doesn't match. MikeeUSA could barely maintain coherent communication; this guy is using language that indicates he's at least several degrees brighter. -- Eric S. Raymond
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: icei.org Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
Alexander Roberts
Subject: 2 months and no response from Eben Moglen - Yes you can rescind your grant.
It has been 2 months. Eben Moglen has published no research.
Because there is nothing more to say: The GPLv2, as used by linux, is a bare license. It can be rescinded at the will of the grantor.
The regime that the FSF used, vis-a-vis the GPLv2, is essential: copyright transfers to a central repository entity that is sure not to rescind.
Linus chose not to adopt this regime. He benefited by greatly increased developer contribution. The price for that windfall was and is the retention of their traditional property rights by the property holders.
They can rescind at will. They made no promise nor utterance to the contrary that can be relied upon. They were paid no consideration. There was no meeting of the minds.
Additionally the CoC regime itself is a license terms violation, being an additional restrictive term, as explained in the other analysis. (Similar to the GRSecurity license violation)
On 2018-10-26 18:31, Eben Moglen wrote:
Isaiah Walker
Hendrik Boom wrote:
Daniel Ortiz
Subject: The CoC regime is a License violation - Additional restrictive terms
Version 2 of the GPL forbids the incorporation of additional restrictive terms, relating to the distribution, modification, etc of the article licensed under the terms.
Those that violate this section are declared, by operation of the terms, to have their grant automatically revoked.
An additional term need-not be present in the same writing. Such terms simply need to be present to or made known to the taker(sub-licensee) by the distributor. They may be proffered in writing, orally, or implied in the course of doing business dealings. They simply must relate back or involve the article in question (the licensed code or product.)
The proffering of additional restrictive terms is a violation of the text of the license grant in and of itself.
Here we have a situation where an additional writing has been proffered. The additional writing promises both in it's own text and by implication consequences against those who violate the terms of this additional writing.
The additional writing restricts those subject to it from expressing certain views publicly - promising retribution against those who do.
No consideration is paid to those subject to the additional writing for their assent; it is simply imposed unilaterally against the subjects.
The violators of the additional writing are promised: Additional, unwanted, public scrutiny (to which they were not subject to prior) Public ridicule. Loss of public standing. as-well as an implied loss of future income.
These are the enforcement mechanisms of the additional writing to enforce its restrictions against those who publish derivative works of the kernel.
The additional writing is activated when (with the prerequisite of being a derivative work of the linux kernel) the work of a rights-holder is incorporated into the kernel, when such a work is made known to the kernel-team to exist where any one person on this earth has seen fit to present it for inclusion, or by simple prior-inclusion into the kernel.
Thus all current and past rights-holders who have code in, or have published for distribution, derivative works of the kernel are subject to the retributive promises made to them in the additional writing, drafted to restrict their actions and utterances.
This is tantamount to an additional restrictive term regarding the modification and distribution of works under the linux kernel license grant.
It is a violation of the license terms of the rights-holders past incorporated works in much the same way that GRSecurity's Contributor Access Agreement was and is.
Nolan Gomez
Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 hours after it was published:
Yes they can, greg.
The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks consideration between the licensee and the grantor.
(IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, in fact, gain no bargained-for benefit)
As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules regarding the alienation of property apply.
Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor.
The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming your right to rescind the license.
Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one of them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to say that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt at the least)).
The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause 4 of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause.
However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses their permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that case the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission under the terms.
Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's public service announcement chooses to ignore.
Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public and the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not impinge the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The impinged property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be taken back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so.
Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, and instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a Copyright License.
The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - opensource is great") 2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not Contract) 3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2 4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions. (Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much more consistent in it's rulings?) 5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc.
Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck of happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those who support women.
(This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female children as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - - verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their will.... who are not idolators of Women)
Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is...
They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. They CANNOT hold YOU.
Jayden Cox
You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from any future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are done harm.
Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into thinking otherwise.
And, yes, I am a lawyer. And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside counsel to analyze the fact pattern. (And even then all they could come up with was statements using weasel words "may" etc: not even wanting to commit to their clearly-disingenuous publication)
Why is there silence now or just "nuh uh, you're wrong, because... reasons... "
Andrew Cox
Did the 5 devs who were looking into this do anything?
Samuel Martinez
Why does no one here give a shit about this anymore?
Are you convinced "na they can't do it".
Because you are wrong.
I am a lawyer, and I can tell you that they can rescind. You are believing the bullshit from other faggot programmers like yourself who think you know everything there is to know in life "becus I kno C!".
Guess what. I kno C too. And the law, because I'm a licensed attorney.
A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will.
You FUCKING retards.
What were the gratis programmers of much of the core of linux paid? The various 1000s of copyright holders.
And did they ever say they would observe a forbearance regarding their rights under the law?
Did they? Nope, you FUCKING retards.
Yet you think the case is settled because Eben Moglen said "nuh uh, and I will tell you why.... some day....." or some fucking know-nothing programmers said "SUUURELY NUUHH UHHHH"
Adam Flores
It's like this entire thread was made by Terry.
Nathaniel Jenkins
I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*.
A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will.
This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD license(s). The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis (paying) customers may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current versions they have in their posession, paid for by good consideration.
Everyone else has NOTHING. Do you understand that?
In the case of the 1000's of linux copyright holders to whom no consideration was given by an entity, and the various BSD copyright holders (read: the programmers), who have not ASSIGNED their copyright over to some other entity, there is NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER THEY NOR YOU HAVE PROMISED NOT TO ELLECT TO USE YOUR AS-OF-RIGHT OPTION TO RESCIND YOUR GRATUITOUS LICENSE REGARDING YOUR WORK.
One cannot rely on a promise that was never made, additionally many of them were never paid consideration for this non existant promise either.
*(Note: I am both a programmer and an attorney, so I know the type)
Benjamin Bailey
oy vey better stop using free software then
Ayden Perez
Why is no one discussing this anymore. It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from programmers.
Are you idiots aware that programmers DO NOT KNOW THE LAW simply by virtue of being "smarts"?
Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) )
Are you idiots aware that Eben Moglen (drafter of the GPLv3 (not 2, Linux is under 2)) has NOT made good on his pledge to publish a report on how I'm wrong and let me "correct" him where he got it wrong.
Why do you think that is? That in 2 months nothing.
It's because, as a relative who's worked in the field for many decades said: he's full of shit.
Anything he publishes would just undermine the stance he's taken.
The license IS recindable at the will of the 1000s of grantors. Any one of them could shake the tree.
Colton Hernandez
You stupid fuck.
The issue is that some WOMEN and their friends(*) have decided to issue a CoC to threaten the M_E_N who wrote the software and eject them from THEIR projects.
I have shown the men that they have an LEGAL AVENUE to fight back. TO FUCK those FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT WOMYN**. (**who all oppose men taking female children as brides; and thus are heretics who oppose YHWH's law and thus perhaps should be burned to ash)
(*rather large entities who wish to have governance over the linux ecosystem)
By rescission of the license grant.
Samuel King
While you are completely right, the problem is that this isn't the LKML, this is Zig Forums. Nobody here hacks on the kernel beyond personal tinkering, or if they do they aren't willing to break their anonymity and get canned and hate-mobbed for wrong think. Hell most of these niggers don't even write real software and only do stupid maths toys if even that.
I'm fairly confident you are preaching to the choir who has simply given up and jumped ship to openbsd or is hacking on their own kernels. As much as I hate that fucking blackpill user's bullshit he isn't that far off about the current state of things being fubar and in desperate need of either a fork or a complete rebuild.
I pray that you can get some of the kernel devs to stop being spineless fucking beta cucks and actually stand up for themselves, but you won't accomplish this goal here sadly.
Chase James
Post it to /g/, some triggered trans twitter activist will signal boost it.
Secondly even if there are devs who are exploring options, neither we nor anyone else will hear about it as they'll be told to shut-up.
(If you tip your hand, an adversary can drag you into court prematurely seeking a declaratory judgement: you don't want this as guess what circuit you'll end up in (read: 9th) most likely. For this suit you want a circuit that follows precedent because you are relying on black-letter law, while the 9th loves to violate black-letter law and introduce irony and comedy into the proceedings)
I can supply the legal reasoning, I can post to the lkml and other mailing lists, but beyond that I don't know how to reach out.
If you and others can do so please do. This issue is not settled, but the enemy pretends that it is.
Brayden Martinez
Would you do the grace of a middle click... and then a second middle click (or a ctrl-c and v ...)
g does not allow Tor. I always use Tor.
Jason Ross
You can't rescind the GPLv2. where is yours? lol. bunch of LARPers. kys
Jayden Anderson
Wasn't there some fag that debunked this whole thing?
Cringe.
David Sanchez
Neck yourself leftykike.
Kayden Fisher
Rescinding the license on an existing public work is like telling people to unsmell your fresh bread or unsee the painting. The idea is complete nonsense. Once it is out there, you cannot change the existing works. The only thing you can change is future releases of those works. When that happens, those works become existing works and those cannot be changed as well.
Benjamin Phillips
jesus christ, kill yourself mikeeusa
Jackson Lewis
The right-holders did not grant their work to the public. They simply licensed their proprietary interest in a very liberal fashion. Those who paid good consideration for access to the work may be protected by consumer protection laws, first sale doctrine, as-well as implied terms. Those who did not have no interest to bind the property owner with. He may rescind.
At-least you acquiesce to that. That the right-holders can bar the use of their code in any future versions of linux etc; they did not transfer their rights, they did not promise not to utilize their rights, and they were paid no consideration for such non-existent promises.
Easton Sullivan
Why would I do that? All my days I do my hobbies: programming video-games, building medieval architecture for said games, building modern architecture for said games, recording music, and enlightening the ignorant on such topics as US law and some aspects of the law of YHWH.
Where do you think I got the time to go to law school?
While you dutifully attend your master at your place of immurement, I do as I wish.
Why would I kill myself? Why would it be me and not you? You have far less of your own life granted to you.
Robert Harris
Your terminology is poor, a Public Work is a work in the public domain, which no part of Linux is. But we took you to mean a work that has been licensed to members of the public in a general way (like commercial software), and worked from there.
If you truly ment Public Work, than you are a fool. Another possibility is that you imagined Linux to be something like a piece of art installed in a public place. Linux is not this, suffice to say, and even in such a case the copyright and trademark owners do not suffer a degradation of their rights: which is why a photograph of the John Hancock building, if exploited for commercial gain, brings the IP holders knocking.
Cooper Hughes
Nope. The best you got was "We hope they don't do this" --RMS "I'll get back to you but you're wrong!" --Eben Moglen (It's been 2 months, his promised exposee' has not been forthcoming) "NOOO THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENCE YOU SHOULD BE JAILED FOR PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE!" --Steve Litt (IIRC)
The black letter law is: A property owner can rescind a license at his will.
The black letter law exceptions to this rule are: When an interest is attached: That is when the licensee has paid the property owner to forego that right to rescind.
This payment can be in money, in kind, by way of labor, etc.
Have you payed programmer 2035 anything, with his acceptance a knowing assent to this no-revocation codicil between him and you?
What about programmer 3072, who works on the netfilter code?
Programmer 5, Alan Cox, did you pay him? What about Programmer 0, linus, any consideration thrown his way (and accepted by him) regarding this agreement between him and you?
??
Did you?
They did not make Linux a Public Work. Each piece is the property of the copyright owner, and they did not assign their copyrights over (something the FSF demands for this reason).
You notice the silence from RMS, Eben, etc etc, All they can say is No!, but they never successfully refute the law. Why is that...
Matthew Wood
lmao If you think that rescinding the GPLv2 is possible why don't you do it :^) LMAO
Austin Wood
I couldn't help much but god speed to you and whatever you do there, I'll just sit here beside my comfy netbsd desktop until microsoft engulf the entire linux kernel, it's one in a life time chance to see this kind of fireworks.
Nicholas Jackson
So where my logic cannot be attacked, my person may be instead? Do you think me a fool, simply because you do not know what you do not know (the law), yet think you do (an attribute of many programmers: know one field, know them all!)?
I've explained the law again and again.
But here it goes:
Under the copyright statute, copyrighted works are alienable in all the ways property is. You can sell, transfer, and license etc.
Copyright comes into existence the moment your work is placed in a fix form. The copyright is owned by the progenitor (you the programmer) until such time as you transfer it (ex: to an employee by way of employment agreement stating such terms), or you die (now your descendants own the rights), or you or your descendants elect to use the "claw-back" provisions in the US copyright act some decades after the work was fixed.
You, both BSD programmers, and Linux kernel programmers have elected to neither sell nor transfer in other ways your copyrights. Instead you have chosen to license your works.
A license is a temporary grant. Under property law it can be rescinded when the property owner wishes to do so.
Unless, the property owner has been payed to forgo that right. That is: if the property owner has been payed by the licensee to promise that he will not rescind the license, then if the property owner elects to rescind the license the court may estop the property owner from doing so because the licensee has payed the owner FOR that right.
Equivalent exchange, if you will. (But the court does not look to if the consideration was... equivalent, just that there was an exchange of some consideration (read: money, goods, services) and a meeting of the minds (both parties ment to do this))
In the case of most linux and BSD licensees nothing has been payed by them to the programmers(you the copyright holders) to induce a forbearance of the underlying rights of the property owners.
Thus the original default rights still stand. You can rescind at will.
Additionally, you have never promised that you would forego the utilization of your property rights, so there is no promise anyone could reasonably rely upon to estop you from utilizing said rights. Additionally, Licensee "E" did not pay you for that non-existent promise either.
You are not bound. You may rescind.
You now know why the FSF requires programmers to assign all copyrights to it. You now know why Eben Moglen remains silent these last two months. I am correct, yes I am a lawyer, and yes anything he speaks further would simply show the weaknesses in his (magnanimously) taken position in trying to fool the Programmers into thinking they have forfeited rights they have not.
On 2018-12-27 21:53, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
Sebastian Russell
I don't think this email address is readable by the sender, his argument is that I'm not a lawyer.
The problem with his argument is that I am a license attorney, and he is wrong on that point.
Now, he may have seen and ignored other lawyers on the LKML pleading with them for more discipline in their legal practice, but dismissed them as "not lawyers" aswell... --------------------- A lawyer?!
From [email protected] Date Tue 12:50 Message Body Hahahahahaha! You ain't no lawyer, buddy -- you're a clueless halfwit, the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux. The Libertarian/Men's Rights morons who circle jerk themselves to no end over on r/TheDonald. I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never.
I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed.
Asher Wright
Your initial argument, as I imagine you ment to communicate (a single negation, rather than the double negation you proffered) hits a snag: I am a licensed attorney.
Your double negatives speak the truth: I am a licensed attorney.
I'm sure my intellect is half that of someone somewhere.
Incorrect, I have informed you of the law, and my analysis is correct.
Many lawyers perhaps begged the linux copyright holders to stop playing fast and loose with the law and their licensing regime. Their advice, of-course, was rejected, and their patches rejected by linus. One attempted patch (the GPLv3) very publicly so.
I notice that the nobles of europe, those that were not murdered, are still in the possession of their inherited lands, while you americans are poor as you constantly divide you wealth in your quest to be "real men". (You also murder anyone who likes cute young girls, in that same quest).
I'm quite tall already.
Enjoy your wage slave life though :) While you were slaving away, being a MhrrAhhN I attended law school, graduated, acquired my license, studied more, programmed videogames, studied more, built 3d architecture, studied more, did RL architecture, studied more, etc.
And had parties every other week with my friends. While you pursued the goals of a real man.
I recommend that people not respond to [email protected], [email protected], and in general, any e-mail coming from domains served by the cock.li service (which comes from the IP address 185.100.85.212). As you can tell if you go to its web page, this mailer serves the following domains:
"Never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Jordan Lee
Lieutenant Ts'o: I see that you have adopted the strategy of "Attack the messaging service, not the message".
You cannot refute my arguments, you and yours simply claim "it's a lie", "it's BS!", "it's a troll".
The fact of the matter is: a license without an interest attached is revocable by the grantor. That is: if you have not been paid to forgo your right to rescind, you still retain that right.
In the case of Linux or BSD: if entity X did not pay you, and did not reasonably rely on a promise not to rescind (a promise you never made), you can rescind the license at any time.
This goes for all the 1000s of linux and BSD programmers who have not transferred their rights.
Yes I am a licensed attorney. Yes my analysis is correct. And yes I'm still waiting on Eben Moglen's promised counter-analysis (it's been 2 months)... take a guess as to why.
1. BO being a giant faggot has driven all the people who may have been interested in discussing this years ago 2. Stop being such an obvious reddit faggot 3. Get a rope and hang yourself
Elijah Adams
I started the discussion years ago.
Christopher Ortiz
What a stupid thing to say...
Because I am not a linux-kernel license holder. I am, however, a lawyer.
And I am trying to inform those who do hold copyright to parts of linux as to their rights.
Idiots like yourself, however, like to scream HUURR DUURRR ITS WRONG U NO LAURER!!! U HAVE IDEAS I DON'T LIKE THUS CANT BE LAUUURRRR
Fuck You.
Jeremiah Torres
You do realize that a license pertains to the licensed article, do you not?
Do you imagine that the goal is to "blanket rescind all licenses using the GPLv2 verbiage"? Is that it? Are you that stupid a lay person?
The guy who owns the property grants the license. Understand? He can rescind that license whenever he wishes, unless you pay him not to, or he promises not to and you reasonably rely on that promise. (did you pay for that promise? is it reasonable for you to rely on?).
Did each of the linux programmers make such a promise to you? No they did not. Did you pay each of the linux programmers anything. No you did not.
They can rescind the license from you.
Understand?
A license is a temporary grant, it is not a transfer.
Jayden Stewart
A discussion I started years ago. People like you just can't get over the fact that they are not lawyers, while I am. You do not like that a person who wishes for all men to have the right to marry cute young girls (female children) is a lawyer, while you are a wage slave. ? Why? Why would I do that?
I guess you simply have no legal arguments.
Dylan Sanders
Could you inform lulz.com and other sites that Eben Moglen's promised refutation article has not materialized and he hasn't made a peep in the last 2 months?
That a license absent an attached interest is, indeed, revocable at the will of the grantor.
That Eben and other Free Software paragons are trying to blow smoke up the rights-holders asses
This was cross posted so many places I have to preface: I got here from the Gentoo list. If this only makes it to the crossposter forward or follow up on the information as you see fit.
The post is crass but still has technical merit. More importantly he seems to be right, the idea that the grantees can't rescind their grant is pretty strange. I'm allowed to change my mind, and you have no claim to my labor if you didn't pay for it, nor can you make me work for free.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:16 PM wrote:
There is one thing you get for free (that you probably had anyway):
I was seeing whether or not the disclaimer of liability in most FOSS licenses was valid. They may not be, *especially* in those United States which require a guarantee of merchantability or suitability for a particular purpose.
Read: You made it, you claim it does something, and if someone uses it and it *doesn't* do that thing explosively it's still your fault even if it was free. The amount of damages are definitely tempered by the fact it was free. Depending on the license, state, and judge, you could have given consideration even though you did not pay money.
I think it is important to clarify that it can be requested you stop distributing the work or stop using it for some commercial purpose, but there is no way you could e.g. be forced to delete copies of it you already have.
Also: Consideration can be nonmonetary, can you speak to this?
Not being able to rescind the license is like saying someone who was lent a lawnmower gets to keep it indefinitely with no contest because the person who lent it can't rescind the grant to the lawnmower.
It is not possible for me to prove to you, a lay person who knows nothing of the field.
What you want me to do is for me to show you some identifying information that you can triangulate.
I will not do that.
Other lawyers know that I am an attorney due to the arguments I have made.
Nathan Jones
I think R0b0t1 from the gentoo mailing list put it succinctly:
Jordan Perry
eh wait a minute that gentoo fag thinks he doesn't get to keep gentoo because it was lent to him?
Anthony King
It is my intention to inform you of your legal rights.
A license is revocable by the property owner. Others are suggesting to you otherwise. They are being disingenuous.
With both Linux and BSD there is no attached interest (no one paid you) There is no detrimental reliance (you never promised anyone you would forfeit your default property rights, and they never payed you for this forfeit)
I waited two months for Eben Moglen's promised refutation. It never came.
You concoct some conspiracy theory about "trolling" because you simply do not understand the very simple legal principals. You furthermore imagine it impossible for a lawyer to waste his time informing you, because you see such a position (one you did not obtain) as too lofty for any to waste their time with you.
I'm wasting my time. With you. To try to get it through your ignorant skulls that you can rescind the grant, and that it is a partial remedy to getting thrown out for whatever CoC is being foisted upon both the FreeBSD and Linux programmers.
Suffice to say: you are too stupid to understand that you do not know what you do not know and that your leaders are blowing smoke up your ass in an attempt to get you to sign a pledge against your current legal rights before you might make use of them.
That is: You are a Stupid Man. Like many of the weak twig like men in the movement. You are little more than employees: and you accept being treated like cattle. You accept being dominated by women, and revel in it: it is all you know. You accept being dominated by bosses, and revel in it: it is all you know.
You also accept that you cannot take young girls as brides. You accept that "your" wives dominate you. You celebrate this.
You hate YHWH's law, which allows men to take girls (female children) as brides, including in cases of rape (5th book of the law, 22nd chapter, 28th verse, in the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew MT)
You are an enemy of the god. You are an enemy of man. You are a friend to women, and their support groups. You design to convert all the intellectual property of the men who created the edifice into the hands of the women and the entrenched interests that support them.
Men who do not like this have an option: Band together as a Bloc, and rescind license to your code.
You can rescind that licensing of your code unless the licensee paid you consideration, or reasonably relied on a promise of yours to not rescind (did he have any reasonable reason to believe that the promise was firm?)
Many of the linux programmers (who did not sign over their copyrights) were not paid by you. Nor did they ever promise you they would not rescind.
It would not be reasonable for you to rely on a promise they never made (nor one you never paid for).
Thus they can rescind, and thus their code can be barred by them from being included in future versions, at the least.
Elijah Jackson
I'm also a lawyer. The GPLv2 is not rescindable. Fuck off mikeeusa faggot.
Jordan Sullivan
Yes it is.
The license is not a transfer of rights, something most lay people don't understand.
Between the various copyright-holding programmers and anonymous-licensee-0-9million: There is no attached interest. There is no promise not to rescind. There is no reasonable reliance on said non-existent promise.
It is absolutely revocable by the grantor.
Refute that. You've had months.
And yes, I am a lawyer.
The GPLv2, in the case of Linux. IS revocable. Like any licensee.
You paid NO consideration to the rights-holder. Nothing. You have NO rights against him. He made NO promise to you, you have nothing to rely upon.
Eli Thomas
Fuck off anti-marry-female-children piece of shit.
Tell us: what did you pay to programmer-rights-holder 7 through 10,002 to secure an interest regarding the license.
Tell us. Can you?
Dear Judge: I paid nothing to property owner, but I DEMAND to beable to use his property in perpetuity.
How do you figure that works out? Tell us.
Nathan Scott
You are not a lawyer. You are a LARPer. I'm a lawyer. Prove me wrong, fagget.
Aiden Myers
So you have no legal argument.
I see.
A license is revocable absent an attached interest. He who pays nothing, receives nothing.
You paid nothing to Owner X. Owner X may rescind the license he has granted to you.
A license is a temporary grant, not a transfer.
Luis Williams
Just like you. At least I'm not a LARPer.
Luke Sanchez
From:r030t1
Thank you for the response, though I feel you don't address my question. Happily though, I spoke with an acquaintance and it was determined that the subservience to the license (i.e. agreeing to be bound by the GPL2) could not be offered as consideration as its restrictions were not the licensee's to offer at the time of acceptance of the license. The licensee had no rights to offer as part of the contract, as the contract had not yet given them any rights to give up. The terms put forth by the GPL2 are only restrictions that are part of the license.
Furthermore, as stated above, it should seem quite self referential - I can't offer my acceptance of a license as consideration, because it is what I am trying to accept.
As I am sure you are aware, under US law there is no contract if both sides have not provided consideration. This leaves us in the strange place of gratis licenses being suggestions.
Cheers, R0b0t1
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:47 PM wrote:
Tyler Martin
You are not a lawyer. Stop LARPing. Seek help for your mental illness.
So Mr Lawyer, how much do you get paid to LARP about your lawyer job?
Ian Robinson
I'm a proud NEET lawyer.
Hudson Peterson
Jacobsen vs. Katzer is a case involving the Artistic License.
The appellate court found that the AL in was not a contract, and simply a pure (copyright) license. Thus statutory copyright damages were applicable rather than (lesser) contract damages.
If anything, This helps my case.
We want the GPL to be a pure (bare) license, just as the FSF has claimed for 2 decades(+?).
Are you people fucking morons btw? You cite a case using the wrong license, that if applicable helps me, which I already explained in
Are you fucking morons? Please, enlighten us.
Camden Powell
My life. I get to do what I wish with my time.
Which a wage slave does not.
(BTW: a license absent an interest is revocable at will, Jacobsen vs. Katzer found the Artistic License to be... a license and not a contract... and yet you cite it as "evidence" that I am wrong. Are you really that much of a lay piece of shit?)
Austin Baker
Who is claiming that the GNU Public License is also a formal contract bound by contract law?
It's good that you got an opinion from an additional party. The programmers swear they know better than I on this subject.
In a previous debate on the subject, the programmers decided that the fact that they followed the license was "consideration", even though without the permission from the grantor they have no right to modify or redistribute the grantor's program to begin with. I had to attempt to dispell that notion, informing them that the permission to redistribute is a gratuity from the grantor, the permission to modify the work is a gratuity from the grantor, the permission to make derivative works is a gratuity from the grantor, and the permission to redistribute derivative works is a gratuity from the grantor; that they have no permission to do these things without the grantor, They still believe it however and ignore me:
Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to keep the lawnmower forever (they followed your instruction regarding the use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license")
The permission to redistribute was simply given, gratis, by the grantor.
He asked for nothing in return, and, infact received nothing, not even a promise of compliance.
At a later date any of countless licensees might decide they wish make derivative works based upon the copyright-owner's property.
By law this is barred.
However the copyright holder here has magnanimously granted that the licensee is, contrary to the default rule, permitted to create and publish derivative works provided that they use the same license as the original work.
Here the copyright holder suffers a detriment. He is payed nothing for this forbearance (no consideration).
The licensee does not suffer a detriment: he had no right to make nor publish a derivative work to begin with.
The extending to him, of permission, is a pure gratuity. He payed nothing for the change from "You may not create nor distribute derivative works" to "You may create and distribute derivative works under the same license as the original work".
Re: Straw Man (Score:2) by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) on Monday October 01, 2018 @09:21AM (#57403506) Homepage Journal
>What consideration was given? The right to redistribute was given in exchange for use of the license for one's own code. Something for something. What was your question again?
Re: Straw Man (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02, 2018 @12:58AM (#57408874)
Incorrect.
The permission to redistribute was simply given, gratis, by the grantor.
He asked for nothing in return, and, infact received nothing, not even a promise of compliance.
At a later date any of countless licensees might decide they wish make derivative works based upon the copyright-owner's property.
By law this is barred.
However the copyright holder here has magnanimously granted that the licensee is, contrary to the default rule, permitted to create and publish derivative works provided that they use the same license as the original work.
Here the copyright holder suffers a detriment. He is payed nothing for this forbearance (no consideration).
The licensee does not suffer a detriment: he had no right to make nor publish a derivative work to begin with.
The extending to him, of permission, is a pure gratuity. He payed nothing for the change from "You may not create nor distribute derivative works" to "You may create and distribute derivative works under the same license as the original work".
Adam Robinson
Yes, I know that the Artistic License is not the GPL. It is you who brought up Jacobsen vs. Katzer as if it "proved the GPL was non-revocable and was a contract".
_I_ pointed out that 1) JvK involved the Artistic License and NOT the GPL, and 2) In JvK the license was found to be enforceable as a license, not a contract.
So you were WRONG on two counts, and now you call me a skitzo.
Your side, if I may remind you, wants the GPL to be a contract with consideration so you can claim some interest is attached and it's irrevocable etc etc.
There IS no consideration. You paid and did nothing to acquire the permission the grantor grants to you. You have no interest attached. It is revocable.
They claim I am not a licensed attorney. Their claims are wrong.
I want to let the 1000s of men who wrote linux kernel code (and freebsd code...) and retain their copyrights that they can rescind if they wish, since the permission they extended regarding the use of their property was a pure gratuity: thus no attached interest... so that they can strike back at the women (and the entrenched interests who back them) who are ejecting them from their own projects.
So they may strike back against the society and culture that is their enemy and the enemy of all men.
Samuel Price
CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).
Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding the use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").
They are wrong. You can revoke the license.
You were paid nothing for this grant. The takers have nothing.
Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your speech, and ejecting you from your communities.
You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the woman and her state).
Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built for yourself.
They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees. (See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be easily replaced)
But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as such. And you should do so.
And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like Bruce Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of advertence not fixated on them.
Robert Morgan
The GPL is not revocable despite not being a contract. It is a license to distribute software and you cannot revoke the license on already existing publications. All you can do is revoke the license on future publications.
Logan Cox
lmao. You're a LARPer.
Benjamin Perez
Band together as a Bloc and take action together. (Bloc revocation). One practice note: do not send a cease-and-desist before-hand. Do not let your lawyer send a cease-and-desist before-hand. If a potential defendant knows that their liberties regarding a copyrighted work is in question from entity X (entity X being a rights-holder etc), then they can rush to the courthouse and file for a hearing to determine their rights.
They do this to give you less time to prepare your case, and to have the case start in a jurisdiction that they feel is favorable to them (the CoC supporters will be trying to get the case adjudicated in the 9th circuit, as they feel they have those judges in their pocket - the 9th circuit absolutely hates men with a passion _even_ greater than the rest of America - and they like to overturn and ignore black-letter law)
You will notice that the CoC supporters and No-Rescind group have fallen silent in the last couple of months. They know they have very little to grasp onto, and every one of their claims have been refuted.
Heather Meekers just gives the issue a gloss and says "lol no" and points to a ZDnet article, where I have cited academic papers on the issue, as-well as the law I learned in law school, and further studies.
Bruce Perens literally called you all replaceable. As did Mathew Garret. Specifically because they feel that they own your property now and they do not need you.
Inform them that such is not the case, in the most direct manner.
Remember: These are the people, the class, that prevent you from having sweet love. They are those who uphold your legal disabilities (cannot marry cute young girls, as YHWH allows). They are your enemies, and the enemies of all Men on earth.
On 2018-12-31 08:45, Ivan Ivanov wrote: > пн, 31 дек. 2018 г. в 05:07, :
Ryder Nguyen
Without an attached interest you can very well revoke the license and prevent all further distribution of your code, and further use of it in future versions.
You can revoke the license.
What you are thinking about is the normal case of commercial distribution licenses - which have an attached interest (they were paid for, the licensor received consideration).
Almost all court cases involve such issues. Not bare licenses.
Additionally you are thinking about consumer protection statutes that would run against the property owner successfully suing for the destruction of all current now-unlicensed copies in existence.
Once the license is revoked the linux team may no-longer use the revoked code in future versions. They no longer have permission - the license they were given ceases to exist.
Normally the copyright owner then has the option to pray to the court that all unlicensed copys be destroyed. The court, as you put, is unlikely to grant this form of relief regarding existing copys that existed prior to the revocation.
That does not mean that Linux Team still is licensed to modify or distribute the code: they are not. The license does not survive the revocation.
Julian Harris
Notice the detractors always simply say "NO u can't do this!" or "No u can't do this because this belongs to this group!".
While I explain where your rights come from, their history, and their extent.
Detractors say "This is like when Author, after being payed millions, tries to revoke an exclusive license from Publisher and have existing Published Works seized and destroyed!" "AND U CANT DO THAT!"
They try to fit the new case of 'Author was paid nothing, signed over nothing, didn't require anything from licensees' to these cases where good consideration was payed for the license, and destruction of physical copies is being sought.
I have explained why this case is different.
For X to have an interest, it is vital that X secured it.
The detractors claim otherwise. They claim that your property can be taken from you because to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to committing the taking.
Elijah Cox
What promise did you rely upon?
It is the right of the property owner to revoke. You payed the property owner (Linux Programmer 721) nothing for his code.
He never promised you that he would forgo his right to revoke (Read the GPLv2, there is no mention of not revoking the license. Something which the GPLv3 adds). (The SFConservancy's artistic interpretations were debunked 5 hours after publication)
Additionally you did not pay the LICENSOR for this forbearance. It is not reasonable for you to rely on a promise that was never made, and a promise that you never payed the owner for.
In short: you are wrong, and you and others are attempting to convert the property of the copyright owners to your own property, essentially.
(Your claim is that another's property can be taken from him because to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to committing the taking.)
On 2019-01-01 12:42, william drescher wrote:
Samuel Turner
tl;dr. Can someone mansplain this to me in one or two sentences?
If you lend (license) your lawnmower to BrucePerens, and receive nothing in return, and BrucePerens hires someone else to draw a star on your lawnmower, BrucePerens believes he can keep your lawnmower forever because he "relied" on your lease and , even though he paid you nothing and you never said you would not rescind the license (a default right of yours, you being the property owner).
Kevin Ross
MikeeUSA is sperging out because of the Linux CoC. He believes that you can rescind the GPLv2 and wants Linux contributors to do exactly that in protest of the CoC. Nobody has done this though and nobody will do it either, so it really doesn't matter whether Mikee is right or not. If only Mikee was a Linux contributor...
Alexander Price
You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is meaningless. The GPL is a commercial distribution license. People are allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to make a big profit by doing this.
Benjamin Ramirez
Thanks for your response :).
Please Spread the word regarding the copyright-holders rights (remeber: the Linux kernel programmers did not sign over their copyrights, one of the reasons Linux grew so quickly amongst developers where GNU very slowly (The FSF will only include code where the copyright has been transferred to it)), thus the various 1000s of linux programmers who didn't work for a company all retain their property rights.
A license is just that: license (permission). It is not a transfer of rights. These licenses that were given are non-exclusive (not to just one entity) and are thus cannot be construed as transfers either.
It's simply permission to use property, same as if you allowed a neighbor to use an ax you owned (gave them license to use the ax).
If that neighbor went and then chopped an enemy to pieces with that ax, limb by limb, joint by joint, applying burning cauterizing oil after each dismemberment, he cannot say "I will not give you back the ax, because I relied on your lease, and thus used the ax in such a way as it would be inconvenient for me to return it to you".
The ax is still yours and you may tell your friend: give me my ax back now (this is you rescinding the license).
On 2019-01-01 22:44, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
Eli Garcia
whom?
Why are you still LARPing as a laywer?
Jayden Cook
It is not meaningless, it is essential.
For you to have an attached interest, you must secure it. And you must secure it from the property owner.
It is not. Nothing was payed to many 1000s of property owners for them to forgo their default rights, nor did they disclaim them in the license, nor were they paid for said non-existent disclaimers.
Until the license is revoked. All your "rights" stem from the choice of the property owner to alienate his property as he sees fit.
Here he has chosen to alienate his property very little: he has simply granted a license (not a transfer). He may revoke this grant at his leasure since it is not secured by an interest.
You paid nothing to Owner. Owner gave nothing to you. He is simply allowing you to temporarily use his property. He can end this permission when he wishes.
You then must prove that you paid him to not use this property right of his, and that he gave to you (in return for this payment in money, performance, goods) a promise to forgo this right of his.
You cannot show that. You have no right to prevent him from recovering his property. In this case the code.
He can say: nope, you cannot use it any-longer in new editions of this software. Then the burden is on you to show the court where he sold you some right that runs counter to his default rights in his own property.
He never did so, so you have nothing to show.
Jayden Torres
The foundation of this law IS in property law.
Copyright is alienable in all ways that property is (see: US Copyright statute).
That is where you get the ability to LICENSE software, books, music, etc to begin with.
The Copyright act announces that these ethereal concepts, these things that are not in reality something one can truly physically extend dominion and control (ownership) over... are never the less... to be treated as such.
Yes, a License, first and foremost, is a PROPERTY law concept. Property which you can defend, which you can build walls around, which you can enclose, from which you can eject trespassers.
An Idea? A song? Can one eject a tresspasser from that? Can one ever rape a mind of an allready-recieved idea?
Can one cut from the grasp of an interlocutor, this supposed Object ... a song?
No. Not in reality.
But the Copyright Act declares differently. It declares that these incorporeal concepts be imagined to be that piece of land on which your stronghold sits, onwhich your implements of defence are trained from the high towers you have erected.
It declares that a Song, A piece of litererature, every copy there-of, all-in-the-same, is not a wisp upon the wind... but a piece of land, or some personal implement such as an ax.
And that you can, indeed, cut from the grasp of some theif this ax, you can cut his fingers one by one until that Ax of yours falls from his countenance back into your possession.
And the way this is done is by the destruction of all offending articles: which a court may order, and or the punishment of those who would violate the property rights of the owner, which again the court may order.
So yes, intellectual property is... like a physical thing. Because the law says it is.
Even though you cannot even prevent yourself from knowing that which is thrust upon you...
Here the property owners, who came to be property owners at the fixation of the article (that is: when the code was written down), chose not to transfer their ownership in the article. Instead they, after reading the Copyright Act, elected to a different from of Property alienation.
A rather limited form known as a license. Permission. A temporary grant which, at their time of choosing, they may end.
Since this grant makes no mention of them selling off their right to rescind the permission, and since, indeed, forbearance of said right was not sold, there is no attached interest with which to bind their hand.
They may rescind. If you don't like that: pay them for a forbearance.
Anthony Perez
You claim that there must be an attached interest. I claim attached interest is meaningless for the revocation of the GPL because I claim that you cannot revoke the GPL. You have nothing to show that attached interest has any meaning for the revocation of the GPL.
Luis Mitchell
So why does this nutjob type like this is reddit and why does he respond to the same post twice without acknowledging the fact? What's his disability?
Gabriel Jackson
You're wrong. When the US Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed—and rejected. The founders of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress. The Constitution gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article I, Section 8):
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in Fox Film v. Doyal, the court said,
This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not required by the Constitution, only permitted as an option—and why it is supposed to last for “limited times.” If copyright were a natural right, something that authors have because they deserve it, nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time, any more than everyone's house should become public property after a certain lapse of time from its construction.
Copyright law is founded not in property law but to promote the progress of the arts.
Let's say you had an old knife shack. Called Knife Shack InC. (you ain't incorporated, you just call it that, looks nice on the sign). On an old dusty road, telephone pole bout ready to fall down next typhoon hit. Behind yo knoif shack there is quite a body of water, now it's murky, but it is infact quite deep. An old sink hole, now filled beyond filling with the dandruff of the ages. No outlets, so the water just pools and infiltrates the surrounding properties.
You own this little piece of the world, owned it for a few generations, bought it off of the old landlords when they were selling mineral rights and then decided to get rid of the rest too.
They went up north. A reverse carpet-bagging situation.
You don't have much. You have a house on another piece of property, quite aways up the road, and this shack, and this sinkhole. You actually are quite the property owner, but it ain't worth shit. That's what erryone tell you anyhow.
The old big house been turned into an old folks home a decaded ago, shame, it's a piece of shit like your property now - least that's what everyone say.
Pope's on TV, old fan from the 50s still working, You could get a flat screen but the power supplies can't handle the brown outs here, old TV still works fine, you use it like a radio anyway.
Guy comes into your fish shack. You ain't never seen him in your life, you tell yourself. You know him however, he lives somewhat close, comes in from time to time, looks around, he in a suit, he never buys from you anything, he has a reputation, suits getting dusty, the pinstripes are wider than that which the people on TV wear.
He comes up to you. You're playing with a knife of yours, spinning it on it's tip. It's a fish skinning knife with a gutting hook on the back. It is quite a large one. The blade is a full 15 inches, thick, you could work on the sand sharks with this, if you ever took the hour and ahalf drive down to the beach.
You have a sign on your counter: "We's generous".
Sometimes people ask you what that means.
The man in the suit approaches you: first time for everthing.
S: "Ay, I'd like that knife"
You tell him it isn't for sale.
S: "I ain neva said I thoughts it was, whass 'Wes generous' mean anyhow"
You tell him that you will lend him the knife if he wishes.
S: "Aight"
He takes possession of the knife.
He's a fisher he says.
The man in the striped suit leaves.
Months go by. You see the man sometimes, he tells you how the knife you licensed to him is getting great use, he fishes alot you see.
He then inquires about that murky seemingly bottomless sinkhole out back. He wishes to be-able to dump some fishing refuse in it.
S: "We's generous, right?"
You grant him license to travel over your land to the sinkhole and dump the fishing refuse into the sinkhole.
Time passes.
(... continued)
James King
(continued ...)
You notice your knife has become more resplendent.
Each time the stripped suited man, this fisher, catches a fish, it seems, he is in the habit of tacking a red five pointed star from Russia onto the handle. Each time the man comes into your shack you notice that there are more and more red stars, additionally, between the stars is now a dark red lacquer. It looks quite stunning, a battle worn cleaver; shouting it's victory against countless ensnared aquatic beings.
Time, again, passes.
Two police officers show up. Not the state troopers who sometimes come by the shop, no these are from one of the towns.
P1: "You sell guttin knives here"
You respond in the affirmative.
P1: "You ever sold a rather large red gutting knife, tack handled"
He seems to be getting agitated. You say no, but you have licensed a fisher to use a knife you own, and while it was not originally tack-handled, nor red, now it would indeed match such a description.
P1: "You fking piece of shit, you get us back that knife or you are going down as an accomplice, you understand that you coal bla.."
The second police man interrupts him.
They start to head out.
The second police man informs you that they will be by the store three days from now, as well as one week from now. To please reassert possession of the knife in that time.
A month goes by and they do not come.
Three months later you are arrested and interrogated in the harshest possible terms. You wonder if you can father children anymore.
You are informed that the prosecutor has agreed to prosecute you as an accomplice, however if you come into possession of the knife, they may reconsider.
Soon thereafter the suited man appears in your store.
You tell him that you are ending the license you had extended to him, regarding both the knife and the permission to dump in the sinkhole.
He contends that the knife is irrevocable: He relys upon the knife to execute his job of fishing. Furthermore he has put tacks in the knife, and if he were to return the knife to you his tack work would go to waste from his point of view. Additionally he tells you that he also relys on your extended license to dump the fishing refuse into the sinkhole for his fishing business and thus that license is irrevocable aswell.
You desperately plead with him and yell "Give me back my fking knife!".
He laughs and leaves.
You are arrested and tried as an accomplice, your assets are seized under civil forfeiture as property used in the commission of crime.
The suited man who was the fisher is tried in asbtentia for Conversion, amongst other rather more serious charges.
As of right: the knife is yours, and you had every right to rescind the gratuitous license you granted regarding it. The fisher never payed you anything for use of the knife, nor of your land. He cannot hold you to your "bargain".
The man was a fisher of men.
Henry Butler
Cheers.
Blake Johnson
how nu r u?
Aaron Rodriguez
Line Unix
Mason Roberts
17 USCS Sects. 201
(d) Transfer of ownership.
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
Jack Baker
A license without an attached interest is revocable by the owner of the property.
The FSF require contributors to their projects to assign ownership of the works to them: For the FSF the license is not enough.
