What is Reddit's opinion of
Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
11 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
"If you dare speak about a subject we dislike, we will have you disbarred" Very convincing counter-argument. Yes, your side constantly threatens me with disbarment. My legal theory is sound, however, and I am not looking for clients. I just want the programmers to know their rights so they do not get "CoC"'d
Here are 3 attorneys who do give their names and in their writing come to similar conclusions: The GPL is revocable from the free-taker. >>https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/ >>https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 >>https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237
​
David McGowan Esq. made a correct statement of the law:
​
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
​
>"Termination of rights
​
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
​
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
​
​
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
​
Lawrence Rosen Esq. got it right the first time:
( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 )
​
>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4"
--Lawrence Rosen
​
>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable.
--Lawrence Rosen
​
>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
​
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
​
​
​
>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/:
>...
>The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."
--Lawrence Rosen
​
Is this "my bullshit": ( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 )
>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4" --Lawrence Rosen
>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable. --Lawrence Rosen
>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
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/: >... >The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract." --Lawrence Rosen
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
>"Termination of rights
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
>GPL can allow lawsuits for violation of its terms. Making it revocable at that point, but I have never seen this avenue.
For paid-for licenses, that is true: the only way to revoke is via the terms, should they exist (if they do not exist, that's a different story). This is why companies prefer paid copyright-license-contracts over free bare-licenses. A bare license can be revoked at the issuers will.
It's basic property law, you learn it in property 101, contracts 101. Furthermore following a pre-existing duty is not valid consideration for a contract. Thus "obeying the license" is not consideration in this instance: nothing allows you to use/modify/etc the property other than the allowance by the issuer via the license.
The GPL doesn't allow anything; it's the law that allows. The GPL's "give us the source (of derivative works)" provisions aren't even enforceable under US law since it alone is not a contract and specific performance is thus not available.
For your study: ( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 )
>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4" --Lawrence Rosen
>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable. --Lawrence Rosen
>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
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/: >... >The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract." --Lawrence Rosen
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
>"Termination of rights
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
Not meritless. If they wish to be sued they can ignore it. The GPL is revocable in cases where there is no attached interest (such as here). This goes for much of the linux-kernel code aswell.
>Presumably they checked with their lawyers, who decided it was meritless guff from some crappy little troll, and chose to ignore it. That would be my instinct too.
Go and FUCK yourself. Your instinct is wrong. You don't know what the FUCK you are talking about when it comes to law. I do (I am a licensed attorney. )
Where does your "instinct" come from? Have you done even an hour of legal study? No? Then how about you SHUT your FUCKING mouth? Your uneducated lay opinion is WORTHLESS.
( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 ) >p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4" --Lawrence Rosen
>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable. --Lawrence Rosen
>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
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/: >... >The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract." --Lawrence Rosen
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
>"Termination of rights
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
>As far as I know ...
You don't know. You are not a lawyer. I am. PJ is not a lawyer. I am. Groklaw is wrong, and has been WRONG for 10 years. It is written by a paralegal named PJ. I am a licensed attorney. PJ simply read the rules regarding commercial copyright license contracts and applied that to opensource, which is an incorrect application. The "rule" relies on the fact that the commercial licensees paid good consideration for the terms they had purchased. THAT is why the commercial licenses are irrevocable outside of the contract terms.
The same is NOT true with gratis licenses for which you have given NOTHING (There is no contract)
A license, absent an attached interest is revocable. Regardless of the "terms".
(And no, "obeying the license" is not good consideration: you cannot use the fact that you will not violate copyright law as "consideration" for a contract: it is a preexisting duty. You have no right to use, modify, distribute the work without the owners permission: the permission that flows from him to you, memorialized in the license text. Permission that is revocable (it is not a transfer of rights))
But don't take it from me. Take it from some published authors on the subject (who are also attorneys):
( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 ) >p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4" --Lawrence Rosen
>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable. --Lawrence Rosen
>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
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/: >... >The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract." --Lawrence Rosen
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
>"Termination of rights
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
I'm a licensed attorney, I know what I'm talking about. Here have a read if you don't believe me:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237
You'll noticed that no licensed attorney is claiming that the GPL is irrevocable from free-takers. The most you'll get, if you pay attention, is highly couched statements. There is a reason they have a non-attorney making the blatant "GPL is irrevocable" statements: those statements are not legally defensible - they can claim the non-lawyer is not an expert in his field however.
Free licenses are revocable. They are not mutually binding agreements: they are simply permission from the copyright owner; permission that can be revocated at the copyright owner's pleasure.
"I agree to... get the thing I'm trying to contract for" is not valid consideration.
Free is not valid consideration.
Nothing is not valid consideration.
"I won't violate your copyright and will instead abide by the limitations in the license text" is not valid consideration.
You do not have a pre-existing Right to violate the copyright owners copyright. You are not giving anything up when you "agree" to these lesser restrictions (down from "you are not allowed to do anything"): you are gaining permissions.
I am an actual lawyer.
In the USA a license is revocable absent an interest. An interest generally means you paid for the license, are in a contract with the grantor (paid good consideration for the license) etc. You can "retroactively" rescind the GPL from a non-paying licensee. They use your property at your /pleasure/. ("Retroactively" is used colloquially here: their past non-infringing actions are not suddenly infringing, their future actions using the same code would be since you have rescinded their license)
Your "understanding" is wishful thinking and is wrong. Your /game plan/ is to throw yourself on the mercy of the court and beg them not to enforce the owners legal rights under an equitable defense (Basically "It's not fair!"). You can do this in virtually any licensor-licensee case, and it IS attempted in virtually every such case where the licensee doesn't have a leg to stand on legally.
(Things are different in non-US jurisdictions, so the second option of "defense" is that violators host outside of the US: where hosts simply do not care about US law)
But don't take my word for it. Take the word of some lawyers who attach their actual name:
( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 ) >p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4" --Lawrence Rosen
>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable. --Lawrence Rosen
>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
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/: >... >The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract." --Lawrence Rosen
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
>"Termination of rights
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
Sorry: a bare license is revocable in the USA; Yes you can. Oh and obeying a pre-existing legal duty is not valid consideration either. Sorry.
( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 )
>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4" --Lawrence Rosen
>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable. --Lawrence Rosen
>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
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/: >... >The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract." --Lawrence Rosen
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
>"Termination of rights
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
Some decisions I have made regarding my GPC-Slots 2 game:
​
I have chosen, as was my want, to rescind the license I extended from a few choice individuals. I can do this because GPC-Slots 2 is my copyrighted work. I built it. I never transferred the copyright over to anyone.
​
The individuals are:
"JohnDoe" from 8chan (he knows who he is)
comphacker from here, reddit (if he violates, I'll know who he is after the subpoenas during discovery)
Leigh Honeywell
Alex "Skud" Bayley
the "Geek feminist" collective (I believe they are identifiable, and a small group, so no harm using this closed-class identification)
​
I will continue to rescind the license from anyone who adds a "Code of Conduct" anywhere near my code (to "fight sexism".). I wholeheartedly /support/ sexism, as-long as it is not against men. Since men are now being assaulted as thanks for their ceaseless decades-long work on opensource by people who did not put in the time, men should /support sexism/ by revoking license to their gratis licensed copyrighted code from any project that adds a "Code of Conduct".
​
--MikeeUSA--
(electronic signature)
​
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Some notes:
A license without an attached interest is revocable in the US (other countries have different laws, which is why many OSS repos kept out of the US in the past, it is also why the FSF is both a 501(c)(3) charity and also requires copyright assignment to them for any contribution they accept (otherwise an author who was still the copyright owner of the code could rescind the license to the code)).
​
Opensource friends like to bring up the recent district court decision in california to try to argue the the GPL is a contract. (It's also interesting that they started adding CoC's right after said decision, to push out the men who created OpenSource) They are wrong. Acquiescing to a preexisting duty is insufficient for consideration. They like to quote this part:
​
>"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint,provides that the
Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial
license" (Artifex v. Hancom, Case No.16-cv-06982-JSC, page 4 line 17)
​
​
This is false on its face.
​
The GNU GPL contains no such language.
​
The /business agreement writing/ that Artifex wrote up and posted on its webpage includes such language. The court here is conflating "The GNU GPL" with the writing Artifex published on it's webpage. It is an error on the courts case. A typo by whomever who drafted the decision perhaps (conflating Artifex's contract language with the GPL itself).
​
The court goes on to allow Artifex to recover on either breach-of-contract grounds (for the amount a commercial license is worth) OR to go forward with a statutory copyright infringement action. If the GPL alone was a contract, there would simply be two different state-law breach of contract theories to pursue (breach of the "business offer" writing or breach of the GPL "contract", and the court would dispose of the case that way).
​
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
​
David McGowan Esq. made a correct statement of the law:
​
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
​
>"Termination of rights
​
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
​
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
​
​
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
​
Lawrence Rosen Esq. got it right the first time:
( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 )
​
>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4"
--Lawrence Rosen
​
>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable.
--Lawrence Rosen
​
>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
​
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
​
​
​
>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/:
>...
>The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."
--Lawrence Rosen
​
Is that why his paper refuting the idea that the GPL is revocable has not materialized in 6 months?
​
Is Moglen more learned about the law than Lawrence Rosen, Sapna Kumar, and David McGowan?
​
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237
​
It's always argument from ignorance with you people.
​
Tell me where is the promised paper from Moglen refuting the above? Tell me. Why did it never materialize?
​
TELL ME YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.
​
I need you to inform me, how obeying a pre-existing legal duty is valid consideration. Tell me. Explain it. I need you to inform me how NOTHING:ZERO:FREE is valid consideration. Can you. I need you to enlighten me as to how Illusory Promises are now enforceable suddenly in the USA.
Popular alternatives to Open Source Licensing: Soft...
Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
C Programming Language, 2nd Edition
