Reddit reviews Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law
We found 7 Reddit comments about Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
I've read Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law. It's pretty good. Available online here.
However, also published in 2004.
It is.
\>I don't know where they get the idea.
​
That's because you are ignorant regarding US law in this area. The FSF is not a legislative body, relying on their proclamations is not wise. A sister organization, the SFConservancy, was headed for the longest time by a non-lawyer...
​
( 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.
​
​
​
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.
"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
Some decisions I have made regarding my GPC-Slots 2 game:
I had 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
Yes one can, in the USA.
Gratuitous licenses are revocable. Always have been, and currently are as-well.
If you want to secure terms you must pay for them.
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
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
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).
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.