>The essential characteristic of a license is that it is revocable at
>the will of the possessor of the land, subject only to the licensee’s
>right to be on the land for a reasonable time after revocation for
>the purpose of removing his goods thereon. Even though the
>revocation of a license may be a breach of contract and give rise to
>an action for damages, it is effective to deprive the licensee of all
>justification for entering or remaining on the land except as
>provided above.

https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017

>In fact, the same treatise suggests that at least some copyright
>licenses need not satisfy all the requirements of contract formation:
>“Notwithstanding that feature of state law, no consideration is
>necessary under federal law to effectuate a transfer of copyright
>ownership that does not purport to require consideration.”127 But the
>cases cited for this proposition relate only to revocability of licenses,
>where some cases hold that the absence of consideration makes a
>license revocable.128 Those cases are consistent with the view that a
>license, to be enforceable, must be a contract. Revoking a license is
>the licensor’s act of ceasing to comply with its previous promise not to
>sue for infringement, and if that previous promise was not
>contractually enforceable because of the absence of consideration,
>then there would be no obstacle to revocation. That is, these cases
>can be interpreted to mean that revocation is permissible where the
>license is noncontractual.
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017

The GPL can be revoked from free takers, even if it's "version 3".
(Note: usually "The GPL" means version 2: which is the most used version before linux adopted feminism in 2007-2009, and rejected Grsecurity because Linus bent the knee to the NSA's national security letters)

>>509706683
Why do you want the GPL not to be revocable?
Do you not respect yourself as a copyright holder?
As a builder of things? As an artist?

>NOO, I __MUST___ have NO rights against my provocateurs!
>GET AWAY FROM ME US LAW: YOU CANNOT GIVE ME RIGHTS TO MY _PROPERTY_!! NOOOOOOO!

Do you like property tax too?
You built the code: why do you think you cannot control it?

>>105823251 (OP)
>yet ANOTHER mikeeUSA meltdown thread

The GPL should be revoked from CoC suckers and Rust-encrusters.

C projeckts were never ment to be trans'd (read: castrated and dick chopped).
They were ment to be ...free... software: free to do whatever they wish with memory.
Under the watchful eye of the kernel (ex: grsecurity).

>The most crucial characteristic of most licenses
>most licenses
>most
GPL is a irrevocable license

>>105823261
What's this guy's deal?

>>105823254
There's over 33,000 pictures of Cirno on the internet and you share AI garbage instead. Schizo kike faggot.

>>105815840
You will go to jail for contempt of court and the cases will be dismissed and your assets seized for government use without a ruling.

>>105823301
No it is not
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=lr

Jacobsen v. Katzer is perhaps the case that has come closest to
addressing this issue. Jacobsen made his copyrighted computer code
available through an open-source “artistic license.” 132 The issue
presented in the case was whether the defendant Katzer’s failure to
comply with the terms of the license gave rise to an action for
copyright infringement. Jacobsen argued that it did but that the
parties had not entered into a contract. Instead, he argued that he
had granted a so-called “bare license,” which “define[d] the scope of
the license grant.” 133 Katzer, on the other hand, argued both that he
possessed a license and that the parties had entered into a contract. 134
Katzer’s argument, however, did not make clear whether he viewed a
contract as being necessary to the existence of the license.
The Federal Circuit, without extensive explicit consideration of
the issue, appeared to treat the license as a contract, applying a
contract-law analysis to decide the case and referring, as did Sun
Microsystems, to the contract-law condition-covenant distinction. 135
The key requirements for the existence of a contract would be
acceptance of the license by Katzer and consideration. Neither topic
was addressed carefully by the court. The court’s discussion of the
acceptance issue was limited to this statement: “The downloadable
files contain copyright notices and refer the user to a ‘COPYING’ file,
which clearly sets forth the terms of the Artistic License.” 136 But
other courts have refused to accept that being pointed toward a
license is acceptance of it, as the discussion above of shrink-wrap and
click-wrap licenses illustrates. 137
The court addressed the consideration issues somewhat more
explicitly, if not more satisfactorily. The court’s basic approach focused
on the collaborative aspect of open-source work:
(continued)

>>105823301
(continued)
>Through such collaboration, software programs can often be
>written and debugged faster and at lower cost than if the copyright
>holder were required to do all of the work independently. In
>exchange and in consideration for this collaborative work, the
>copyright holder permits users to copy, modify and distribute the
>software code subject to conditions that serve to protect
>downstream users and to keep the code accessible. 138
But this is not a valid theory of consideration. Some licensees of
open-source programs no doubt contribute to the debugging and
improvement of the programs, but not all do. More to the point,
none of them promise to do so, so there is no promise that would
constitute consideration. 139
The court also offered other possibilities based on more specific
requirements in the license: “The choice to exact consideration in the
form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure
[of the source of software] and explanation of changes, rather than as
a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition.” 140
But this does not constitute valid consideration either. A gift is not
consideration, nor is a conditioned gift. 141 So, for example, if an
offeror said, “I will give you $3000 if you promise to use it to buy a
car,” a commitment to use the money to buy a car would not be
consideration. That is so because in the exchange the recipient gives
up no legal right, having had no prior right to the money or to any
particular use of it.
(continued)

>>105823301
(continued)
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. 142
So the license in Jacobsen appears not to have constituted a valid
contract. Jacobsen, the copyright owner, conceded (or contended) as
much. 143 Yet the Federal Circuit appeared to consider it important to
address acceptance (even if obliquely) and consideration. 144 This
presumably is evidence of the court’s view, consistent with its patent
cases, that a license must be a contract. As in Mallinckrodt, however,
the court in Jacobsen was quite creative in determining that such a
contract exists.
Some commentators, however, argue that licenses like those in
Jacobsen do indeed meet the requirements of contract formation. 145
In a recent article, Robert Hillman and Maureen O’Rourke argued
that open-source licenses provide consideration:
>More challenging are open source licenses that do not contemplate
>any of the above exchanges, but simply authorize licensees to
>transfer, copy, or modify the software, subject to certain
>conditions. Such “terms of use” often include (and we focus on) the
>“copyleft” and “same terms” provisions discussed earlier. These
>terms should also constitute consideration under the bargain
>theory. Recall that general contract law finds consideration if a
>condition constitutes more than is necessary to transfer a gift.
>Terms of use, such as “copyleft” and “same terms,” are not
>necessary to convey software and therefore constitute
(

>>105823301
(continued)
>consideration under general contract law if at least part of the
>vendor’s motive (however insubstantial), judged objectively, is to
>extract agreement to the terms of use. 146

This is a creative interpretation of the consideration doctrine. 147
The cases to which they cite involve “minor” promises made in the
context of a gift, where the goal is to determine whether the promisor
really sought “more than is necessary to transfer a gift,” 148 in which
case the bargain requirement of consideration would be met. Those
facts seem to have little to offer in the open-source context, where the
“consideration” is not necessary at all to effect the transfer, but
involves limitations on what can be done with the transferred work.
In the end, Hillman and O’Rourke’s argument seems to be colored by
their view that “open source licenses nicely fit into the category of
promises that contract law should enforce,” 149 but the desirability, if
any, of open-source licensing does not justify a distortion of the
consideration doctrine. 150

GPL is Revocable.
Jacobsen quoters got the law wrong.

As the university of Florida brief has noted:
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=lr

Public domain chads win again.

>>105815840
>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.

Grsecurity does it. Nothing happens to them.

>>105823381
>You will go to jail for contempt of court and the cases will be dismissed and your assets seized for government use without a ruling.
Wrong.
A federal copyright case costs the copyright owner 700k - 1million dollars start-to-finish today to bring and win.

No one will bring one over Linux.
No one will bring one over any GPL'd software, other than RMS that one time.

Now: onto collecting the money:
Without copyright registration: and of the infringed version: and BEFORE the infringement occured: there is no attorneys fees, no treble-damages, etc to be recovered.

So Linux or any other GPL'd work isn't getting those awards.
They might get the money the company made off of the infringing work: which in Grsecurity's case is 100-200k a year. If they can even find it in the company.

They won't beable to reach the assets of the officers or employees of the company: provided it kept the corporate form etc.
Charging orders have made LLCs less safe.
S-Corps are still good.
C Corps are very good but double taxed.

I know we programmers have to share space with lawyers and politicians. But I hate you all and wish we didn't have to interact with each other. Your licenses and policies do nothing other than cause excessive difficulties for programmers and stifle progress at every opportunity.

>>105823381
>You will go to jail for contempt of court and the cas
Not in Delaware where all corporations are registered. Maybe in "Kill all Loli anime" texas (actually: no).

And yes: everyone violating these copyrights is a registered legal entity. I would assume they are registered in Delaware. Maybe they aren't. But it is the right assumption to make.

>>105823976
>I know we programmers have to share space with lawyers and politicians. But I hate you all and wish we didn't have to interact with each other. Your licenses and policies do nothing other than cause excessive difficulties for programmers and stifle progress at every opportunity.

Why do you hate me? I'm a C programmer and a QuakeC hacker.
Also a lawyer.

>https://chaosesqueteam.itch.io/chaosesque-anthology >https://sourceforge.net/ >projects/ >chaos >esque >anthology/
(note: the project is NOT on Github)
(some faggot will keep posting a github link claiming I'm a hypocrate because of a Code of Conduct HE added to MY project)
(ChaosX has NO code of conduct)

>another mike thread
must... not... fedpost...

>>105823976
>Your licenses and policies do nothing other than cause excessive difficulties for programmers and stifle progress at every opportunity.
Bullshit. You never, ever, ever enforce your licenses or copyright to your programs. Ever. So the licenses are immaterial in reality.

Without the licenses there would be only one way to enforce your Vill: a hammer.

Also that's the only real way any opensource license will ever be upheld: direct action. Because you just refuse to sue anyone.

They can CoC you, throw you out of your own projects, add additional terms that ban redistribution of edits to YOUR program so YOU never get them back. And you won't do anything.

Grsecurity has show this.

>>105824021
Feds are barred from fedposting, on this Silo'd website. So indeed: you shall not fedpost:
Fed. (contractor, not agent)

>>105824025
>You never, ever, ever enforce your licenses or copyright to your programs.
You say that like it's a good thing. It's annoying that most of the GPL lawsuits are done by the FSF and all the proceeds go to them rather than the authors anyway. Not very valuable for anyone but them.

>>105823976
>I know we programmers have to share space with lawyers and politicians. But I hate you all and wish we didn't have to interact with each other. Your licenses and policies do nothing other than cause excessive difficulties for programmers and stifle progress at every opportunity.

Why do you hate me? I'm a C programmer and a QuakeC hacker.
Also a lawyer.

Answer the question.
(you won't)

>>105824045
I'm under the impression that you have a mental disorder so I choose not to engage with you.

>>105824037
No, it's a bad thing:
Also the FSF is a scam. They kicked RMS out for being a loli loving beast of a pedo loli lover (alleged).
Every 501c3 corp is a scam.

Notice how they demanded you transfer over your copyrights from the begining? It was ALWAYS because copyright owners can rescind licenses. ALWAYS. They knew it from the begining. Yet make up some other excuse
>We can't sue otherwise, no standing
Yet other organizations have NO problem funding lawsuits of people who DO have standing as 3rd parties.

Remeber: originally RMS said that the POINT of the donations of "money" (can't buy young virgin child brides: so isn't money (if a wheel cannot roll, is it a wheel: no it is not) (first purpouse of money in Sumer was to approportion grain for the army and to buy young virgin girls for marraige)) was so that he could hire programmers to program free software projects.

He never did that.
All the money goes to women and minoities. None to the actual programmers.

>>105824051
So you have no refutation and yours was just a throw-away statement. Because of being over the target.

If I have a "mental disorder": how did I pass the Bar exam? How do I program?

>>105824088
You have reinforced my stance.

>>105824088
idk the bar exam seems easy. you just go really low, don't you?

>>105823251 (OP)
The GPL is not revocable if the reason you are licensing something under the GPL is because the code you wrote contained someone else's GPL code. In that case, you are under contract with someone else to make your code GPL'd, and do not have the option to release it under any other license.

Now imagine a chain of such contracts. Program A contains part of program B that is GPL'd. Program B contains part of program C that is GPL'd. Program C contains part of program D, and so on. You would need the developer of the first program to release the license to allow the others to do the same. And maybe that developer is long dead.

Many jurisdictions hold unilateral clickers agreements as enforceable even without consideration. The GPL probably does have suitable consideration in the form of promises to perform certain acts and the burden of loss. The GPL requires of the licensor the distribution of source code to the license holder without addition compensation or at limited compensation, and in exchange demands the licensee to grant license under the same terms to anyone who may come into possession of the copyrighted work, including any derivatives made pursuant to the license granted in the GPL. It's a promise to act on behalf of the original copyright holder in consideration of the rights to source code from the holder.

Either way, the GPL provides for automatic termination in the case of noncompliance and in the act of termination the copyright grant is withdrawn and you must desist in using it.

>>105823251 (OP)
why do you want to revoke your GPL licensed code, anon?

also I wonder if Uniform Electronic Signature Act jurisdictions allow the GPL in some situations to be treated as a deed or speciality? Just a thought I don't know if this would even work or not.

>>105823259
Why should it be legally impossible for me to come up to you and say "here, I promise you can use this thing forever"? Why would I not have the right to do so?

>>105825648
>Why should it be legally impossible for me to come up to you and say "here, I promise you can use this thing forever"? Why would I not have the right to do so?

Because it is an illusory promise.

You can transfer your copyright to another person just as you can gift your watch to another person: but then it is theirs exclusively.
(Note: Under the copyright statute you can claw it back after 30 years or so).
You cannot bind yourself to a promise for free however.
"I promise not to revoke the permission to do X with my property from Y, for nothing"
"I promise not to sue X for copyright infringement, for free"
Which is what the opensource licenses (some of them) pro-port to do.
GPLv2 doesn't even try though (v3 does).

>>105825648
>Why should it be legally impossible for me to come up to you and say "here, I promise you can use this thing forever"? Why would I not have the right to do so?

Court won't uphold it if you change your mind.
"Y wants to punish you for you promising to not impede him from using your lawnmower .. forever"

Also it violates the rule against perpetuities.
Also since it is not exclusive: it cannot be "reformed" as a copyright transfer by the court.

You aren't an employee of Y being paid by Y whereas Y was allowed to believe your lawnmower was his property, and was not corrected by you for years while you both worked on the lawnmower together creating a quasi-joint-interest in the lawnmower and it's operating princapels which you shared in communistic joy forever: until you fell out with eachother and you sued Y for the return of your lawnmower.

... that didn't happen either.
So an estopple interest wouldn't apply either.

>>105825648
>Why should it be legally impossible for me to come up to you and say "here, I promise you can use this thing forever"? Why would I not have the right to do so?

Moment 1: You, X, like Y. You make this promise.
Moment 2: You, X, now hate Y. You elect to cancle Y's subscription to your "thing".

Should the court force you to allow Y to use your "thing"?
No.

The promise isn't worth shit. That's why.
Much like opensource licenses.

You get what you pay for.
X didn't pay.
He gets nothing.

You'll appreciate it when you grow up,

>>105826302
Right, but that sounds like a failure of law then, not something that's morally right. No? Similar to how germany doesn't allow you to waive moral rights, making it impossible to place works into the public domain under german law.

Though now I'm curious. If licenses were restructured as contracts, e.g. everyone wishing a non-revokable sublicence to the software and code can pay $1 for it, would it work?
And if you also made it available for everyone else, but only as an illusory promise as you say, would that undermine the contract for those who do pay, or could both coexist?

>>105825646
>also I wonder if Uniform Electronic Signature Act jurisdictions allow the GPL in some situations to be treated as a deed or speciality? Just a thought I don't know if this would even work or not.

Rule against perpetuities would (and does) bar these "forever" "transfers"
Also there is no exclusivity in the GPL licensing. So it is not a transfer.
So it has to be either a contract or bare license.
If it is a contract, enforcement against the owner fails because it's an unsupported promise.
If it is a bare license, enforcement of a promise not to sue by the owner fails because that promise is again not supported by anything; additionally throwing people off your property (or disallowing them use of it) is a fundamental proprietary right.

Additionally the Rule against perpetuity would bar a "forever" grant of an easement aswell, or license, or anything.

>>105826353
>Right, but that sounds like a failure of law then,
It's not. It's working as intended.
> not something that's morally right.
Is it morally right for a freeloader to co-opt 7 years of your life (or however many years you put into making the software)?
>No? Similar to how germany doesn't allow you to waive moral rights, making it impossible to place works into the public domain under german law.
Germans are logical people.
If they were free people they would find a solution to the "Code of Conduct": hey programmer we kick you out of your own project, situation.

>Though now I'm curious. If licenses were restructured as contracts, e.g. everyone wishing a non-revokable sublicence to the software and code can pay $1 for it, would it work?
You can do that now: You can add a codicil "to" the GPL that says anyone that wants an actual copyright license contract can pay you $1, $5, $100 etc.
Artifex and Jacsobean that people cite did just that: They allowed you to buy a license. Which is why people get confused and claim the "GPL is a contract because of Artifex and Jako V R". (Note: it was dealing with the Artistic license and MIT, not GPL, they won't tell you that though)

>And if you also made it available for everyone else, but only as an illusory promise as you say, would that undermine the contract for those who do pay, or could both coexist?
Both do coexist.
Those who pay you when you have asked to be paid have an ACTUAL License.
Those who do not do not have shit.

BTW: I _actually_ paid for Darkplaces/Nexuiz development in cash money;
and I also coded for Nexuiz, and made 3d model for it; both of which are in it and Xonotic to this day.
No one else other than illfonic paid for the game.

Yet I'm the one people hate

>>105823251 (OP)
>>105823254
>>105823259
i said it before but kangaroo courts are not on your side really, hope you get your math right anyway

>>105825648
>Why should it be legally impossible for me to come up to you and say "here, I promise you can use this thing forever"? Why would I not have the right to do so?

Why should a court enforce that when you change your mind?
It's your software, the faggot you're making a "promise" (it isn't a promise) to is worth as much as his title suggests.

You know those "promises" you make to people that they can have X when you die?
Those aren't enforcable either.

>>105826401
>i said it before but kangaroo courts are not on your side really,
That is correct.
If a white boi tried to rescind from a woman/trans/etc the courts would, in cahoots with the woman/trans/etc, drag out the ajudication until the white boi was bankrupt from attorneys fees over 20 years.
And then they'd declare they own your Corpse as they use your tissue for trans surgeries.

That is the reality: they don't care about the law.
They care about the plaintiff's class and the defendant's class.

However I'm just pointing out the actual law.

The real law is force: and you should rescind your license with a hammer if you want it to be effective.

>hope you get your math right anyway
What do you mean?

The setup code for the various classes of stock (from penny stock to holding company stock) in the casino game someone keeps posting because they don't like that I didn't use an algorithim instead? The reason I did it the way I did was because I didn't know what algorithim I wanted to use for initial stock price and availability. So I did a lookup table. Tested it. Was happy. Left well enough alone.

>>105826400
>It's not. It's working as intended.
What if I intend to make my software available for all to use? If the law doesn't allow me to enforce e.g. the WTFPL on my own work then I consider that a failure of law.
>"Code of Conduct": hey programmer we kick you out of your own project, situation.
That's a social problem, not a legal one, to be fair.

>>105826419
>Why should a court enforce that when you change your mind?
Same reason it enforces that in contracts, sales, and every other area even if you change your mind.
The only difference is the consideration, which if it can be $1 is literally symbolic. In personal terms, if I say "you can use this software forever, I pinky promise I will never sue you!" and you say "ok", OR if I say "pay me $1 and you can use this software forever and I will never sue you!" and you say "ok, here's $1" - the actual decision-making is basically identical. It's not logical to me that the law would treat them so completely differently.
If I change my mind, why would the second case be different and enforceable by the courts?
As in, I understand why. I just think it's the law is flawed in this case. If you're supposed to have full control of your property, why would selling licenses work? It's not even about the cost - I'm pretty sure you can't "buy back" contracts like that if not previously agreed to. Like, imagine I sell a license for $500, then decide I changed my mind and want to send back $500 in return for the guy no longer having a right to use my software; I'm pretty sure courts won't enforce that. That's really not that different to if I sold it for $0 in the first place.

>>105826401
I like cirno.

>>105826471
>What if I intend to make my software available for all to use? If the law doesn't allow me to enforce e.g. the WTFPL on my own work then I consider that a failure of law.
It isn't.
Because it would be "some fuck" enforcing against you.
And that's not right: you made the software: someone who took it for nothing should not beable to use your magnimanity against you.
The same reason the CoC situation is so grating: the generosity of you is being later used as a weapon against you.

>>105826465
>he doesn't know about the perfect class

>>105826486
>someone who took it for nothing should not beable to use your magnimanity against you
And it just doesn't make sense that someone taking it for $1 should.
Or someone taking it for $500 should even if I reimburse the $500 back.
These cases are not conceptually any different to the one who took it for nothing in the first place; they're only legally different for some reason. The law doesn't match reality here.

>same reason the CoC situation is so grating: the generosity of you is being later used as a weapon against you.
Adding a CoC in the first place is not generosity, it's pure stupidity.

>>105826471
>The only difference is the consideration, which if it can be $1 is literally symbolic. In personal terms, if I say "you can use this software forever, I pinky promise I will never sue you!" and you say "ok", OR if I say "pay me $1 and you can use this software forever and I will never sue you!" and you say "ok, here's $1" - the actual decision-making is basically identical. It's not logical to me that the law would treat them so completely differently.

Courts used to lookinto if consideration was actually "valuable" consideration.
That is: if the value amount was sufficent.

A 1 dollar is equal to 1 penny 100 years ago when these decisons were last made.
And infact: under those older understandings: 1 penny would NOT be valuable consideration and consideration would likely fail vs a perpetual forever license for your software you worked on for years.

So you're wrong there.
HOWEVER: In US Jurisprudence it was then changed to "even a peppercorn is good enough consideration" by... was it Justice Learned Hand? Or the other one from NY...

Some courts have come to reconsider the value of consideration again.

>>105826509
>And it just doesn't make sense that someone taking it for $1 should.
>Or someone taking it for $500 should even if I reimburse the $500 back.
>These cases are not conceptually any different to the one who took it for nothing in the first place; they're only legally different for some reason. The law doesn't match reality here.

You are right: and in contract law that USED to be the case.
1 penny would /not/ have been considered "valuable consideration".
A US Supreme court justice just decided to ignore consideration about 100 years ago.

So from a logical consideration: the Law: as it was understood under common law: for 1000 years: agrees: that "token" "consideration" would FAIL. And there would be no contract.

The $1 donator would not have been able to block you from revoking your license and suing them for copyright infringement if they continued to use the software.

It's ONLY under the jurisprudence that "we aren't going to weigh the value of consideration anymore" decision that your Logical approach was ignored.

It happened around the time women were given the vote too.

>>105826509
A $1 transfer of real property (land), is not considered valuable consideration in US real property law btw.

It's seen as a sham and a tax-dodge.
So where the state has interests: these low-value "contracts" and "transfers" are barred.

>>105826509
>Adding a CoC in the first place is not generosity, it's pure stupidity.
And it's not done by the original copyright owners most of the time.
99.99% of Linux C hobbiest programmers that own most of the copyright to the base of Linux: did not accept a CoC.

Linus was threatened with his college daughter claiming he molested and fucked her as a little girl; and then signed off on the CoC. (during his "vacation').
US Intelligence was involved.

It's still an invalid restraint not endorsed by the rest of the copyright holders: and a violation of their Copyright.

>>105826508
I really like Cirno.
Reimu is good.
But I like Cirno.

I want a Cirno anime.
And Cirno in my opensource game.

>>105826512
>>105826554
This makes sense (though why did you write two posts saying almost the same thing?).

What about the case of the consideration being refunded?

>>105826587
This is true, but again a CoC is generally social and not legally binding.
Linus added a CoC to the official Linus kernel repository. If all the hobbyist programmers made a different repository for the kernel they could exclude the CoC from it. They just haven't bothered.
This doesn't stem from Linus having any sort of copyright or legal right, it stems purely from Linus having social capital due to being "the face of Linux", the single most well-known developer, the one known for starting and leading the project, the main point of contact with the US assets who have a vested interest in Linux, etc. etc.
All purely social and not legal.

>>105826614
>What about the case of the consideration being refunded?
Here the courts are split:
*Some say if there is payment: and there is a lack of a clause regarding revocability: that an implied irrevocability is party of the copyright license contract.
*Other courts believe that there is no implied irrevocability in the absence of a clause regarding revocability: for paid copyright license contracts.

Either way: the rule against perpetuities may still bar these "forever" (paid for) licenses. Since they aren't transfers. (they are non-exclusive)
Additionally the claw-back provision in the Copyright Statute might be used by a court to limit such to 30 years or so.

No piece of software has been deemed valueable enough after 30 years to sue about however.

>>105826614
>This is true, but again a CoC is generally social and not legally binding.
>Linus added a CoC to the official Linus kernel repository. If all the hobbyist programmers made a different repository for the kernel they could exclude the CoC from it. They just haven't bothered.
>This doesn't stem from Linus having any sort of copyright or legal right, it stems purely from Linus having social capital due to being "the face of Linux", the single most well-known developer, the one known for starting and leading the project, the main point of contact with the US assets who have a vested interest in Linux, etc. etc.
>All purely social and not legal.

A court wouldn't be fooled.

A Copyright holder has an exclusive right to control Derivatives.
The CoC's are emplaced by non-rightsholding 3rd parties usually, or 3rd parties lacking total-ownership or even majority-ownership over the Property.
They effectivly: in reality: control Derivative works.
While not being adjudicated by rights-holding parties.

A court would beable to be made aware of the realities of the situation: that's what Court is for.

So you're somewhat wrong here.
The Court would take into account this, what you call, the "social control".
And see that.

1) the CoC is effective in adding additional terms and restrictions to the * project
2) the CoC is effective in controling who "gets" to make derivative works and who "gets" to contribute to the project
3) the Copyright holders didn't agree to this.

It's a copyright violation.

>>105826677
Interesting. If this got to the courts and a precedent was made for it, it'd be great.
But right now, as I understand it, legally you can make your own fork or fuck off. Some projects have, in fact, succesfully forked over differences in leadership; some have even surpassed the original project in popularity. (OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice comes to mind.)

It's rare but it does show that this ability exists.

Cirno is cute but OP is a massive fag.

>>105826698
Under copyright law you are not allowed to stage a public performace against the copyright owners wishes.
Nor are you allowed to make an annotation without the copyright owners wishes.

The copyright owners did not desire a CoC to be added to corpus of their work.
Nor did the copyright owners desire for, using their work as a backdrop, speech of others to be judged and punished: using their Copyrighted work as a cudgel and a lure.

The copyright owners made this explicitly clear earlier in FreeSoftware/Opensource's reign both in written statements, recorded statements, and on video.
They said that anyone was welcome to contribute: they only cared about the quality of the code. This is evidence to their intentions.
They also wrote in their Copyright License that "additional restrictions" not envisioned within the 4 corners of their License: are barred.


The CoC's are a violation, in addition to the reasons previously stated:
1) Because they are a forbidden annotation to the Corpus of the Copyrighted work (additional restrictions are barred, explicitly. Codes of Conduct are indeed additional restrictions (speech restrictions against contributors and current other copyright holders))
2) Because they are a public performance not permitted by the Copyright holders. The act of bringing "racist fascists mysoginist white males" up on "Charges" with the Corpus of Copyrighted work as the backround: is such a public performace of the Work that is barred in explicit terms by the Copyright holders in their "no additional restrictions" clause in the memorandum of the permission they have given others regarding their Work. Additionally evinced by the consistent and concurrent-with-original-publishing of the work that "Anyone" is welcomed to contribute: only the "content of the code" will be evaluated.

The CoC is a Copyright violation for these reasons, and others.

>>105826702

>>105826702
> Cirno is cute but OP is a massive fag.
"Hey I agree with you guys, but the guy saying things: he's no good!"
"Come back to the plantation!"
>"Can't refute anything:. call names"

You think you're brighter than the sun.
But you can't even approach the moon.

>You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. (GPLv2)
>You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. (GPLv3)
Which one of the rights are they restricting?

>>105826817
This is only a copyright violation IF these small contributors all collectively decide to exercise their right to revoke the GPL they have granted.
Until then, there's no copyright violation. Freedom 0 in the licenses is the freedom to use the software and code for any purpose, including for surrounding it with a CoC.

>>105826899
> including for surrounding it with a CoC.
Wrong. Public Performace Copyright violation.
>>105826882
I allready explained:
CoCs effectivly, in the real world, impose speech codes which do not exist within the text of the license memorandum.

The Courts deal with what happens in the real world.
Linux, for example, is a continuous joint-work (yes it is: I know you're going to say "no it isn't it doesn't apply": if push came to shove: a court would likely find Linux to evince all the makings of a joint-work*)
When one is barred from contributing to the project: there is no realistic hope of the code ever becoming "part" of Linux.

The original Copyright holders were working on Linux.
Not any branch or version.

Their dictats apply to Linux.
They spelled out in video, interviews, and in text that ANYONE was welcome to contribute: only the content of the code was to be evaluated.
That is their intentions.

The GPL is a 1 page document.
It is not fully integrated.
These other statements would be brought in to show what the copyright holders ment.


>*And guess what this means regarding sub-licensing to others...

>>105826998
>Public Performace Copyright violation.
They have a license though.

>>105826899
>>105826882
You're not allowed to "Publically Perform" Linux as you wish to.
Nor make an Annotation during your Public Performance as you wish to.

The Copyright holders wrote in their memorandum "no additional restrictions"
The Public Performance of Linux: now includes Libeling various copyright holders and programmers, bringing undue scrutiny on them, and placing them in a false light. Additionally said Public Performance of Linux includes creating mob courts against the speech and opinions of said copyright owners: and using their own Copyrighted work as a weapon against them.
So as to place a restriction on their speech and their opinions.

This is explicitly barred by the memorandum regarding the Work: Linux.

This goes for every single other traditional piece of opensource software: Be it GPL, MIT, BSD, etc: all : every single one: of the original copyright holders said that there is no speech restrictions and only the content of the code is to be evaluated.

>>105827009
No they do not.
They do not have a Public Performace license for Linux.

Not at all.
They can be sued for that alone.

mikee you don't know how much I love you

>>105827009
>"The GPL gives me the right to create a mob court and try white male software programmers that wrote the GPL'd work for speech code violations I added in a seperate writing.

No it does not.

>1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code
>2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program
>3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form
A Code of Conduct doesn't restrict you from exercising any of these right with your copy of the program.

>>105826817
This is only wrt to including the CoC in the repository, no? Because this is the attempt to make it part of the project, but it would obviously fail if they attempted to downstream CoCs to forks.
What effect does it have that projects are violating their own licence?
Does it simply make the CoC enforcement effectively illegal in the context of the actual repository?

Yeah this is something many people don't understand. But unless you're forcing everyone to sign off their commits everyone who ever contributed will need to be compensated.

>>105826368
>perpetuities
nta, Copyright grants of any kind are not perpetual, you (or your successors) can serve Termination on any copyright 40-45 years after the grant and assuming it's not enjoined, it will terminate the licenses (and sublicenses)
actually, yeah you said that here >>105826302

Either way, you are right. the GPL is sort of designed on the assumption you are buying or selling the software, given the express permission to deal commerically in free software. Outside of that it would essentially be a bare license or just an agreement with no legal force.

But just as you can terminate nonexclusive licenses, so can the author of the work from which you are a derivative. That's the enforcement mechanism of GPL in it's non-binding form. If you disobey the terms of the GPL, the original author has the power to terminate your license grant. If you then take your own original changes (derivative of other's) and refuse to execute the GPL, the author which licensed you can in turn terminate your license, and end your own project.
So yes, the GPL is revocable. Do it at your own peril, because this argument goes both ways.

>>105826677
isn't the coc just to decide who gets to *contribute* to the project, not to control the access to copyrights, the creation of derivatives? 'cause if you're banned from the mailing list, you can still use Linux and make derivatives. nothing that was promised in the license was infringed by adding rules to the development organization in control of the 'cannonical' linux. either way the GPL is not binding unless you paid for the software so doesn't mean jack shit what they promise not to do in the GPL