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.

>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>105807475

Artifex v. Hancom does not say what you think it says. It is dealing with an offer by a company that the customer either PAY for a COMMERCIAL license __OR__ ellect to use the GPL.

The court found that the company could proceed under a Contract theory to recover Contract damages OR choose to follow a Copyright theory and pursue Federal Copyright damages (GPL).

That is: the Court allowed the Copyright owner and offeror of the Commerical License Contract to DECIDE if there was a breach of Contract (no payment for the Commercial license) OR if there was instead a Copyright violation only (Violation of the GPL).

It did not decide that the Gnu General Public License was, on it's own, a Contract.

>This is explicit in GPLv3: "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."
>in short, its not revocable

Wrong. That is an illusory promise. It has NO effect if you are a free-taker.

>Jacobsen v. Katzer
Have you read Jacobsen v. Katzer? The 9th circuit appellate court ruled that the Artistic License was /not/ a contract, and was instead a simple copyright license. It found that the lower court erred in construing the Artistic License as a contract, and reversed the lower courts finding: telling the lower court that the Artistic License is not a contract.

That is, if anything, supportive of the "revokists" position.

>>105807480
Jacobsen was a case involving the Artistic license, where the lower court was /REVERSED/ by the Higher Court: the Higher Court finding that the Artistic license was /NOT/ a contract and was a simple copyright license. So you're wrong there too.

>>105807475
I'm a licensed attorney: and you didn't read the case, nor follow up on it.

>>105807372
The Copyrighted work is effectivly captured by the people ruling over it via the Code of Conduct.

You're just being a disingenous little shit. You know the network effect exists. You know the CoC enforcers rely on it. You know a court can see that too.

>>105807239
>you can just disregard the code of conduct.
History has shown you can't.
A court would not be fooled.

Additionally it is an additional wrighting.
Which impinges on the Copyright owners rights by claiming to beable to control conduct that the Copyright owner expressly deemed non-sanctionable: and to be left alone. The GPL states: no furthur restrictions are to be placed on sub-licensees. This is the language the Copyright owner decided to endorse.

The Code of Conduct does put furthur restrictions on sub-licensees; while being emplaced by those not owning the Copyright to the Work.

Such as : speech codes.
Enumerating classes of persons wanted
and
Enumerating classes of persons not-wanted.

Against the Copyright holders permission.

>>105807220
What typically happens, as a pattern, is that a third party adds a Code of Conduct to the project.

Attaching it to the Copyrighted work of another.
And then enforcing it against various contributors and would-be contributors.

That is: the original Copyright holders are now absent.
A 3rd party comes in, adds additional rules that the original copyright holders never agreed to.
And then enforces those rules.

It is a complete violation of the Copyright holders right to control derivative works.
That's how it works in the real world; and that's what a court would deal with.

>>105807163
>>105807161

I've been programming for more than either here.

A court would look at the actualities
When one third party is in a lynchpin position and has monopolized some project: outside of the consent of the Copyright holders: and is stifiling the free exchange that the original copyright holder set forth in his GPL licensing out of his Work: it is clear that a violation of the Copyright owners right regarding control of derivative works has been userped.

Where the Copyright owner ellected to decree that the Work be freely trafficked and edited by all and without restriction; and envisioned a collaborative fastion in which this is to be done without furthur restrictions:

When a 3rd party overtakes the field and then imposes; by whatever manner; such restrictions: it is a violation of the Copyright owners exclusive right.

yes Codes of Conduct by 3rd parties, when attached to a Work they are not owners of; are a copyright violation in the case of GPL licensed works. And most other works.

>>105807150
Grsecurity debunked nothing.

>>105807153
I am a lawyer, I did graduate from law school, I did graduate from a college, and I have a law license and am a member of the NY Bar.

Bare licenses are revocable by the grantor.
The GPL, in it's normally used form, is an example of such a situation.
Control of derivative works is an exclusive power of the Copyright owner.

3rd parties cannot overtake this power.
Codes of Conduct, as they are typically found, are violations of the Copyright owne'rs exclusive rights: and are a Copyright violation: and a court could easily see that.

>>105807139
A court would not be fooled.

Controling derivative works is an exclusive right of the Copyright holder. Code of Conducts seek to wrest that exclusive power from the Copyright holder and put it in the hands of 3rd parties.

They do so by punishing other licensees or potential licensees who run afoul of their edicts. Since they are attached to a Copyrighted work : this implicates the Copyright Owner.

He has the right to take action against that if he chooses. It is a copyright violation.

>>105807114
>like say if some github repo of a gpl program has a coc, you can just fork it and work on it freely on your own. the gpl /only cares about the code/
Incorrect. The GPL governs the behavior of the licensee to the sub-licensee/down-the-line-licensee.
Example: "you may not enact furthur restrictions not enumerated in this document" (paraphrased)
That's a restraint on the licesee vs down-the-line licensees
(which: Grsecurity ignores and violates freely)

Codes of Conduct are similar.

>a coc is not a license addendum, it doesn't apply to forks or modifications
It is effectivly an addition of additional restrictions; which are forbidden by the Copyright owner's license (the GPL).
It adds consequences that do not exist in Copyright owner's given license for conduct not governed by the copyright owner's given license.
Where-as the Copyright-owners' given license expressly forbids adding such restrictions between licensee and sublicensee.

Which the Code of Conduct entryists ignore.

Especially where the Code-of-Conduct enforcing entity has effectively taken the entire space where other contributors could conduct their business. (pre-empted/Taken over the field)

>>105807114
The space it's attached to has become, in reality, the controller of the copyrighted work.

A court would understand this.
That that 3rd party has gained de-facto control over the Work (which it doesn't own).

Basically effecting a conversion.
Not that >>105807101 would know what that is.

It is an impingement upon one of the Copyright holders exclusive rights.

>>105807091
>Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc.
>>("[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).

Argue against it, dipshit.
And yes: I am a lawyer.

Other lawyers I've talked to all agree that bare licenses are revocable.
One works on a Copyrights and Patents book for westlaw.

>>105807048
>>105807051
A Copyright holder has the right to control Derivatives.

A random 3rd party does not have that right.
Codes of Conduct effectivly control derivative works in a way the Copyright Holder did not intend.

Impinging on one of his rights.
White cattle are too dumb to understand this and accept it.

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.

>>509630739 (OP)
the GPL is not revokeable, that's the whole point of the GPL