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.

>BUT JACSOBEN! ARTIFEX!

>>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.

>BUT JACSOBEN! ARTIFEX!
>>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.

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.

>A proud nu-/g/ user walks into your project
<-----