Slashdot Mirror

Main:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/1... (GPL Recission announcement (to show it can be done and encourage others to do it))
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/... (Debunking of SFConservancy's statement)

Anti-Rescind:
ZDNet "Debunking" lulz.com article (by quoting PJ the paralegal, who got it wrong): https://www.zdnet.com/article/...
This is constantly cited by "no recind"ers.
SFConservancy's "Debunking" of lulz.com article: http://sfconservancy.org/news/...
(The new section: https://copyleft.org/guide/com... )
---
Pro-Rescind:
Refutation of SFConservancy's "debunking" of lulz.com article: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/...
(Published 5 hours after the "debunking")

Public announcement of GPL Recission of GPC-Slots 2 game vs "Geek Feminists": https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/1...
(This was also posted elsewhere, so as to be visible to the recindees, and sent to the mail of the named individuals, where it could be determined)

Submission to slashdot (wasn't posted): https://slashdot.org/submissio...
---
Eben Moglen vows to write a paper about how the GPL is irrevokable:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/...
2 months later still no paper to be found: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/...
---
Other useful links:
8chan discussions with author, and expositions on the law:
http://8ch.net/tech/res/101340...
http://8ch.net/tech/res/101782...
http://8ch.net/tech/res/101872...

4chan /g/ discussion, expositions on the law:
https://warosu.org/g/thread/S6...
http://archive.fo/OhIR4
http://boards.4channel.org/g/t...
---

Here's one user who did as suggested and consulted with an attorney friend, the attorney friend refuted the "following the GPL is consideration" argument nicely:
https://archives.gentoo.org/ge...

Thank you for the response, though I feel you don't address my
question. Happily though, I spoke with an acquaintance and it was
determined that the subservience to the license (i.e. agreeing to be
bound by the GPL2) could not be offered as consideration as its
restrictions were not the licensee's to offer at the time of
acceptance of the license. The licensee had no rights to offer as part
of the contract, as the contract had not yet given them any rights to
give up. The terms put forth by the GPL2 are only restrictions that
are part of the license.

Furthermore, as stated above, it should seem quite self referential -
I can't offer my acceptance of a license as consideration, because it
is what I am trying to accept.

As I am sure you are aware, under US law there is no contract if both
sides have not provided consideration. This leaves us in the strange
place of gratis licenses being suggestions.

Cheers,
R0b0t1

---
Various other threads:
https://archives.gentoo.org/ge...

The software freedom conservancy has tendered its response:
http://sfconservancy.org/news/...
http://copyleft.org/guide/comp...

""
"The GPLv2 have several provisions that, when taken together, can be construed as an irrevocable license from each contributor. "
""

It cites:

" That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance" (GPLv2Â4). "

However this is disingenuous

The full text of section 4 is as follows:

""
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
""

The "You" in section 4 is speaking of the licensee regarding sub-licensees, it is not speaking to the licensor/copyright-holder.

IE: if the licensee loses his license, through operation of the automatic-revocation provisions, the sub-licensees do not also lose their licenses.

IE: The language is disclaiming a chain topography for license distribution, and instead substituting a hub-and-spoke topography (all licenses originating from the copyright holder, not the previous-in-line)

GPLv3 added a no-rescission clause for a reason: the reason being to attempt to create an estoppel defense for the licensees against the licensor. You will notice that Eben Moglen never speaks on these issues. (He preumably is aware of the weaknesses vis a vis the US copyright regime.)

Section 6 further clarifies the hub-and-spoke model:
""
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
""

The memorandum posted then goes on to a discussion of estoppel, detrimental reliance, etc; noting that users may have relied on the software and their licenses may be estopped from being revoked from said users since doing so might cause them unanticipated loss. This is speaking of already published, existent, versions of the program used by end users.

The memorandum seems to ignore what happens to "upstream" once said project receives a revocation notice. Thought it may be possible that users of a published piece of software may have defenses to license revocation, the same is not true regarding the rescinded property vis-a-vis future prospective versions of the software nor of future prospective licensees of said software.

That is: once the grant to use the code in question is rescinded, future versions of the software may not use that code. Current users of the software may be-able to raise an estoppel / detrimental reliance defense regarding the current published software, however the programmers working on the next version of said software cannot continue to use the property in future versions of the software (such would be a copyright violation once the gratuitous license is rescinded by the grantor).

Additionally, prospective-licensees, once the grant was rescinded and such was published,

((Response to SFConservancy) Under US copyright, permission regarding a GPL version 2 licensed work is revocable by the grantor. )

The software freedom conservancy has tendered its response:
http://sfconservancy.org/news/...
http://copyleft.org/guide/comp...

""
"The GPLv2 have several provisions that, when taken together, can be construed as an irrevocable license from each contributor. "
""

It cites:

" That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance" (GPLv2Â4). "

However this is disingenuous

The full text of section 4 is as follows:

""
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
""

The "You" in section 4 is speaking of the licensee regarding sub-licensees, it is not speaking to the licensor/copyright-holder.

IE: if the licensee loses his license, through operation of the automatic-revocation provisions, the sub-licensees do not also lose their licenses.

IE: The language is disclaiming a chain topography for license distribution, and instead substituting a hub-and-spoke topography (all licenses originating from the copyright holder, not the previous-in-line)

GPLv3 added a no-rescission clause for a reason: the reason being to attempt to create an estoppel defense for the licensees against the licensor. You will notice that Eben Moglen never speaks on these issues. (He preumably is aware of the weaknesses vis a vis the US copyright regime.)

Section 6 further clarifies the hub-and-spoke model:
""
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
""

The memorandum posted then goes on to a discussion of estoppel, detrimental reliance, etc; noting that users may have relied on the software and their licenses may be estopped from being revoked from said users since doing so might cause them unanticipated loss. This is speaking of already published, existent, versions of the program used by end users.

The memorandum seems to ignore what happens to "upstream" once said project receives a revocation notice. Thought it may be possible that users of a published piece of software may have defenses to license revocation, the same is not true regarding the rescinded property vis-a-vis future prospective versions of the software nor of future prospective licensees of said software.

That is: once the grant to use the code in question is rescinded, future versions of the software may not use that code. Current users of the software may be-able to raise an estoppel / detrimental reliance defense regarding the current published software, however the programmers working on the next version of said software cannot continue to use the property in future versions of the software (such would be a copyright violation once the gratuit

I thought Google developed all their own code? Isn't it just the header files they copied from Java?

They did, but they copied the APIs. The court applied the Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test, and found that substantial portions of the API were copyrightable. Not the pleasantest of circumstances, but anyway, that's where we are: copying header files can be a copyright violation.

I want to add some analysis here, following the appellate court's ruling in Oracle v Google (if you haven't read it already, I strongly recommend reading it, because it is clear-minded and I fully expect it to set the precedent for software copyright cases for a long, long time).

So, imagine the 'owner' of the Linux kernel sued the customer of Grsecurity. Following OvG, the courts would first apply the Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison test to figure out what is infringing. So the question is, what is infringing? After running the AFC test, there is nothing left that the customer doesn't have a license to. The Linux kernel 'owner' has given the end-user the right to use all of his(her) code. There is nothing left that the 'owner' can say that the customer doesn't have a license to.

Now, if the user doesn't have the right to use the code remaining after the AFC test, I would be interested in hearing an argument as to why not.

Under GPLv2 yes, and this is one of the reasons why licensees should prefer GPLv3. GPLv3 allows for a 30-day period following receipt of notice of the violation where a first-time violator can come into compliance and regain the rights they lost. See copyleft.org for more on this in two sections, one on GPLv2 termination on violation and another on GPLv3's "lighter" approach. Here's a quote from the relevant section on GPLv3:

GPLv3 Â8 now grants opportunities for provisional and permanent reinstatement of rights. The termination procedure provides a limited opportunity to cure license violations. If a licensee has committed a first-time violation of the GPL with respect to a given copyright holder, but the licensee cures the violation within 30 days following receipt of notice of the violation, then any of the licenseeâ(TM)s GPL rights that have been terminated by the copyright holder are âoeautomatically reinstatedâ.

Under GPLv2 yes, and this is one of the reasons why licensees should prefer GPLv3. GPLv3 allows for a 30-day period following receipt of notice of the violation where a first-time violator can come into compliance and regain the rights they lost. See copyleft.org for more on this in two sections, one on GPLv2 termination on violation and another on GPLv3's "lighter" approach. Here's a quote from the relevant section on GPLv3:

GPLv3 Â8 now grants opportunities for provisional and permanent reinstatement of rights. The termination procedure provides a limited opportunity to cure license violations. If a licensee has committed a first-time violation of the GPL with respect to a given copyright holder, but the licensee cures the violation within 30 days following receipt of notice of the violation, then any of the licenseeâ(TM)s GPL rights that have been terminated by the copyright holder are âoeautomatically reinstatedâ.

As for the lawyers, the lawyers may not understand this area of law is rather specialized and very technical.

Yes, that's why I talked to a lawyer who specializes in software copyright in Silicon Valley. But anyway, appeals to authority are lazy arguments, so I should go into more detail.

If you look at the case law, the courts don't consider the linking method at all, it's irrelevant. The courts use a different method to figure out what is a derivative work, the abstraction filtration comparison test.

copyleft.next and copyleft.org are exploring these things:

https://github.com/richardfont...
http://copyleft.org/