[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectAuthor rescinds license from "Geek Feminists" -- Updates: Explicit rescission from named persons.
The author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has 
rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.
( )

[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists"'s license /just/
occurred. 2019. January.]

The original author, after years of silence, notes that the "Geek
Feminist" changed[1] a bunch of if-then statements which were preceded
by a loop waiting for string input to a switch statement. The author
reportedly noted that to use a switch statement in such an instance is
no more preformant than the if-thens. Switch statements should be used
where the input to the switch statement is numerical, and of a
successive nature, for most efficient use of the jump table that is
generated from said code.

The author reportedly was offended, after quiet observation of the
group, that the "Geek Feminists" mocked his code, mocked his existence
as a male, and never did any work on the code afterwards and never
updated to include new slot machines added to the original code by
author subsequently.

The author notes that he neither sought nor received any compensation
for the granted license, that is was a gratuitous license, and that
there never was any refutation of his default right to rescind given. (A
right founded in the property law of licenses.)

The copyright owner has reportedly watched quietly as each year the
"Geek Feminists" published a recount of their heroic efforts regarding
his code.[2][3] Presumably he has now had enough of it all...

The author notes that the SF Conservancy attempts to construe a
particular clause in the GPL version 2 license text as a "no revocation
by grantor clause", however that clause states that if a licensee
suffers and automatic-revocation by operation of the license, that
licensees down stream from him do not suffer the same fate. The author
of "GPC-Slots 2" reportedly notes that said clause does only what it
claims to do: clarifies that a downstream licensee, through no fault of
his own, is not penalized by the automatic revocation suffered by a
licensee he gained a "sub-license" from (for lack of a better term.)

The author reportedly notes that version 3 of the GPL did not exist when
he published the code, additionally the author notes that even if there
was a clause not to revoke, he was paid no consideration for such a
forbearance of a legal right of his and thus said clause is not
operative against him, the grantor, should it exist at all.

(Editor's note: GPL version 3 contains an explicit
"no-revocation-by-grantor" clause, in addition to a term-of-years that
the license is granted for. Both absent in version 2 of the GPL)

The author reportedly has mulled an option to register his copyright and
then to seek damages from the "Geek Feminists" if they choose to violate
his copyright post-hence.

(Editors note: Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can
amount to $150,000 plus attorney's fees for post registration violations
of a differing nature to pre-registration violations.)


GPC-Slots 2 is a text console mode casino game available for linux with
various slot machines, table games, and stock market tokens for the
player to test his luck. For the unlucky there is a Russian Roulette

[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists"'s license /just/
occurred. 2019. January.]

Addendum: Statements from the program author:

"It's my right to rescind the permission I extended.
I have done so.

You speak as if me controlling my property is a criminal act.
And to you people, perhaps it is.

If the "geek feminists" wanted a secured interest, they would have to
pay for one."

"I did rescind the license, yesterday"

> Reportedly
"I did rescind the license, yesterday

Not "reportedly" anymore."

> Then you should have used them.
Not necessary, the language used in the press release identifies them

> should
As if I somehow can't just rescind using their names either.

License to use/modify/etc the GPC Slots 2 code is hereby terminated for.
Alex "Skud" Bayley, and Leigh Honeywell.
(Note: this termination is not to be construed as a lifting of the
previously issued termination regarding the "Geek Feminism collective",
this termination is an addendum)


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
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

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-14 11:49    [W:0.036 / U:11.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site