CoC's violate the Copyright holder's exclusive right to control Derivative Works. - /g/ (#105814026) [Archived: 496 hours ago]

Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:17:44 AM No.105814026
MARRY_FEMALE_CHILDREN
MARRY_FEMALE_CHILDREN
md5: 29302d5de2682ff49df9f91dfdad1668🔍
The GPL is revocable.
CoC's violate the Copyright holder's exclusive right to control Derivative Works.
They are a Copyright violation against any Copyright holder that did not OK or envision a Code of Conduct attached to their Work. An additional wrighting added by a 3rd party; attached.
Replies: >>105817107
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:18:14 AM No.105814029
>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).


>https://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
>https://www.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.
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:20:18 AM No.105814039
>>105807292
Controling derivative works is an exclusive right of the Copyright holder: regardless of license.

Which the Code of Conduct enforcers have taken for themselves. That's why it's a Copyright violation: they impinge on one of the Copyright owners exclusive rights.

Additionally: The license language the Copyright holder has CHOSEN in this instance is the GPL: which states the licensee cannot impose any "furthur restictions not enumerated in this text" (parapharased) on SUBLICENSEES (I USED THE WORD) / Down-the-line-licensees

Which furthur clairifies that the licensee does not have the right to add any other rules.

Which the Code of Conduct adding licensees do do: and often where they have taken over the field regarding the Copyrighted work in Question.

That is: They act as an Agent of the Copyright holder: without permission and without him asking them to. They impose restrictions on the practical creation of derivative works; AGAINST the Copyright owners express wishes.

It is a violation.
Just as Grsecurity is a violation.

The CoC enforcers engage in censorship, banning, libel, falselight, and various other torts to make sure they are the only practical real-world avenue regarding the Copyrighted Work.

A court would weigh this real-world circumstance vs the theoretical proper working of the GPL.

Anyone can read a proprietary book in their mind and have a "private fork" in their head. When they cannot meaningfully engage regarding another work because a 3rd party has interfered against the wishes of the Copyright owner: it cannot be said that there is no impingement against the Copyright owner who has "GPL'd" this now captured Work.
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:21:54 AM No.105814045
>>105807407
>There is no "network effect", schizo.
Yes there is. You can't refute that so you name call.

>wrong, you have already proven that you can't read, see >>105807027
No dipshit: I read those cases, Artifex, Jacosoben, etc.
Bare licenses are revocable absent consideration.
Additionally: you cannot force some random "gift" as your "consideration". Dipshit.

I explained that in the cases you cite: the licensee had the option of taking a paid-for license. Or the GPL, or the Artistic license (as was the case in one). Oh you didn't notice that did you.
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:23:42 AM No.105814059
>>105807452
Jacobsen v katzer did NOT achieve what you are claiming it achieved, yes I read the case.

1) you are relying on dicta from a 9th circuit suit: 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. ("Not a contract")
The passage you are relying upon is a thought experiment one of the judges went through where he waxes poetically about the Linux Kernel project and his general appreciation of the opensource ethos. It is not controlling opinion: nor an opinion at all: simply dicta about an issue that was not before the court at that time. Also note: The 9th circuit's decisions are binding only on California etc.

Basicall, you read some article claiming that the unrelated dicta in the case was a binding opinion, and you believed that: because YOU are not a lawyer (and neither was the paralegal who wrote said article). You simply don't know the difference between dicta and binding opinion, nor do you understand the jurisdiction of various circuit appellate courts.
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:25:55 AM No.105814069
Screenshot 2025-07-06 at 00-18-55 _pol_ - CoC's violate the Copyright holder's exclusive right to control Derivative Works. - Politically Incorrect - 4chan
>>105807452
Wrong. They can sue for copyright infringement. There is no contract between a copyright holder an a free-licensee, at all, whatsoever. There is no consideration paid, and no contact in existence.

The appeal of Jacobsen-v-Katzer found that the lower court was wrong and that the Artistic license was not a contract: only a copyright license.

Secondly, dipshit FUCK, Jacobsen-v-Katzer is 9th circuit only.
>Capachata: KOTS
>>I agree
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:27:15 AM No.105814076
cocks violate what
Replies: >>105814102 >>105814106
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:30:51 AM No.105814102
>>105814076
Your boypussy.
Replies: >>105814119
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:31:38 AM No.105814106
>>105814076
>cocks violate what
Copyright. Repeatedly and with forceful action.
White boi linuxers are too afraid of the 700k - 1million bill to take it to federal court and protect their copyright and code they wrote themselves.

Like finnish boys. Or russkie.
Replies: >>105814349
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:32:16 AM No.105814112
This is kind of a moot point because the GPL itself isn't enforceable in most jurisdictions.
Replies: >>105814129 >>105814136 >>105814142
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:32:40 AM No.105814119
>>105814102
Remeber how cowed and afraid linus was after his "vacation".
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:34:41 AM No.105814129
>>105814112
>This is kind of a moot point because the GPL itself isn't enforceable in most jurisdictions.
Then it falls to bare copyright: which means the copyright holder can do whatever he wants.

Like suing CoC pushers for copyright infringement. Or killing them (...self help).

If someone bashes your head in with a hammer, until you forget what the GPL is, and what software you were using, and what software you were using entryist tactics to control: you can't "posess" what you can't remember: right?
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:36:06 AM No.105814136
>>105814112
>This is kind of a moot point because the GPL itself isn't enforceable in most jurisdictions.
Someone who downloads a piece of software for nothing has no rights to it at all. There is no enforcable contract against the "seller" (who didn't sell anything).

Why are free-takers so entitled?
Replies: >>105814200
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:37:57 AM No.105814142
>>105814112
>"Hey nice software you are "selling" for 0 dollars: btw we now control it and no white males are allowed to contribute code to it anymore"
This is what white people who cut their cocks off for Jesus (matthew 19: greek) do today.
And somehow they are controling the opensource code even though they didn't write it nor do they own it.

What is the solution?
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:40:43 AM No.105814163
1750133289909
1750133289909
md5: 0ee1427f3a568f9227c9f831adc14b0d🔍
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 6:46:53 AM No.105814200
>>105814136
You have it exactly the wrong way around. Downloading a software that's freely available does not constitute the formation of a contract. Also the GPL is a EULA if you actually read it, and all EULAs are invalid in the US, as are most liability releases. This leaves you in an all rights reserved situation but most computer code is not eligible for copyright due to its triviality, to say nothing of how things have changed since Google v Oracle 2021. You and your ilk live in a fantasy land and the precedent is against you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
Replies: >>105814314
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 7:11:39 AM No.105814314
>>105814200

>On May 20, 2009, the parties announced a settlement agreement that included Cisco appointing a director who would ensure Linksys products comply with free-software licenses.

>A settlement announced in March 2008 included an agreement to comply with the GPL and to pay an undisclosed financial settlement.

>In December 2009, Software Freedom Conservancy[verification needed] filed a lawsuit against 14 companies, including Best Buy, Samsung, and Westinghouse alleging violation of the GPL. By September 2013, all of the defendants had agreed on settlement terms

Sounds like the GPL is iron-clad to me.
Replies: >>105814703 >>105815512
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 7:18:21 AM No.105814349
>>105814106
Didn't you give up the copyright when you also agreed to the code of conduct?
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 8:27:26 AM No.105814703
>>105814314
The fact that they always settle means that the GPL has literally never and I mean NEVER been proven in a court of law.
Replies: >>105815503 >>105815840
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 10:58:23 AM No.105815503
>>105814703
>The fact that they always settle means that the GPL has literally never and I mean NEVER been proven in a court of law.

Correct.
Also you can't get in-kind restitution (ie: you can't steal other people's code because they used a GPL'd piece): courts will only allow you cash money judgement: and/or to stop distribution of the infringing work. You used to beable to destroy all copies of the infringing work physically too: but that hasn't been used in a long time.

If the "infringing" work is seperable (ie: can be used with or without the GPL'd thing) then there won't be infringement either.

So you can use a GPL'd library at will.
Might get sued: but you'll eventually likely win.

An example of a seperable work: the nvidia driver (same code works for linux and windows, which uses shims to adapt it in)
An example of a non-seperable derivative work: Grsecurity linux kernel patch and their gcc patches.

Marry Lolis.
Replies: >>105815840
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 10:59:43 AM No.105815512
>>105814314
RMS got a few million out of that IIRC.
Which is why they're DEI rewrighting everything in Rust.

So you "rely" on trans-faggot christians and muslims instead of paedophile Jews.
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 11:16:58 AM No.105815617
1661619641546498
1661619641546498
md5: c3c8ea889b80a6a7b0964a8f19558aae🔍
Marry Little Girls.
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 11:18:57 AM No.105815629
1718158179694889
1718158179694889
md5: 613652d599a5914235b77a77ea21334c🔍
>For the russian
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 11:56:13 AM No.105815840
>>105814703
>>105815503
Can't some good samaritan make a shell company, use it to break the GPL in the most egregious way possible and refuse to settle so there's legal precedent? I know I can't because I'm not a filthy gringo, but surely there's one with a couple thousand laying around to throw at it.
Anonymous
7/6/2025, 3:22:35 PM No.105817107
1737676198003974_thumb.jpg
1737676198003974_thumb.jpg
md5: 36a786e8022e954f857800849598d2c9🔍
>>105814026 (OP)
CoCs don't apply to the codebase itself tho.
They're only for community faggotry and can't be used to revoke licensed code.