Some updates:
http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#1024398
Anonymous 01/29/19 (Tue) 08:32:45 No.1024591
1024400
I rescind the license from you.
I am going to sue you if I find out who you are.
1024400
#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
#modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
#as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
#of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
That is permission. It flows from me, NOT the file.
I am the owner of the GPC-Slots2 game code.
The previously given permission has been revoked from you.
A license, absent an interest, is revocable.
You have paid me nothing. I can and I have rescinded the license from
you and am not granting you any others.
You are now violating my copyright, should you continue to
redistribute/modify/etc.
That's how it works in the USA.
1024405
Might waste more cycles than the compares.
-------
Anonymous 01/29/19 (Tue) 08:35:04 No.1024593
1024586
1024588
1024589
I can't even imagine being this bootyblasted.
#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
#modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
#as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
#of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
You can't rescind this :^)
Anonymous 01/29/19 (Tue) 08:36:48 No.1024594
1024591
Might waste more cycles than the compares.
You know that gpcslots2 is written in perl, right?
1024592
sue me then XDDDDDDSDDDDSDSSDDDD
Protip: you won't because you're a LARPer
-------
1024593
YES I CAN.
HOW MUCH DID YOU FUCKING PAY ME?
NOTHING.
ARE WE IN A CONTRACT?
NO.
IT IS A BARE LICENSE.
I __CAN__ RESCIND IT AT ANY TIME. AND I HAVE FROM YOU YOU FUCKING PIECE
OF FUCKING SHIT.
THE CODE IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. IT IS _MY_ PROPERTY.
I CAN DECIDE HOW __MY____ FUCKING PROPERTY IS TO BE USED.
I DID _NOT__ GIVE YOU THE PROPERTY. I ALLOWED YOU A LICENSE TO USE IT. I
HAVE NOW REVOKED THAT LICENSE FROM YOU YOU FUCKING PRO-WOMEN'S RIGHTS
ANTI-MARRY-CUTE-YOUNG-GIRLS PIECE OF FUCKING FILTH.
As such, said language you quoted is no longer operative for you.
Show me a case otherwise.
You won't because you cannot.
Gratis licenses, without an attached interest, are revocable.
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.
-------
Anonymous 01/29/19 (Tue) 08:45:52 No.1024599
1024594
sue me then XDDDDDDSDDDDSDSSDDDD
Kindly provide your name, address, etc. Also a photo.
Protip: you won't because you're a LARPer
I will if you're in the USA.
If you're not then this is a meaningless discussion. This is about US
law, not some other country's law
