From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185ECC433C1 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 12:24:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C446561A2A for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 12:24:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230041AbhCZMYK (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:24:10 -0400 Received: from cock.li ([37.120.193.123]:48048 "EHLO mail.cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229839AbhCZMXt (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:23:49 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 460 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:23:49 EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=firemail.cc; s=mail; t=1616761408; bh=m8BF/tDhSwE/VDeqCwpMKd2xUcq46vQeBMqz4WMzXu8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=tk4dZZ0DsMU1uuRWMjWRCk+NqQUlq9z9nUG5oJjuxC7tiiz8bKRVz4DbJ6QYa5S62 6LrLFME3VGIm3Wnj09m9isuIWTCyfj/MT+ODldpXjiQHRc07ezeQfwI10efyb/yGCn 7QGOMmJBk0HJKgAVN5Tol0rD+ggmFprlWzDv4FVJ/cfcl3gnhH1otRDrydfrmhQ49C nXsixIg4yo13pSRkdOXaeV0csHfF/w+l1x1t1LHBCF+nRgBALSOFRm9DV/huMHf7f+ ts/BLpSrtcgHzM3WCY0XRFnNR+OdlkQluC0uuol2iC1gu8YpKce9jEbdAlTwYr9y3N Qvb52rkhsLTng== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 12:23:27 +0000 From: mikeeusa2@firemail.cc To: rms@gnu.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bruce@perens.com Subject: RMS: If FSF is giving you trouble, recover the (C) using the 30 year statutory method and make a new entity. Message-ID: <6f753f640eb653b1bdc0460f35a30746@firemail.cc> X-Sender: mikeeusa2@firemail.cc User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.15 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear RMS: This if the FSF is giving you trouble, you could recover your copyrights using the 2nd method (the Statutory method), make a new foundation, or just a new corp entity, and transfer the copyright again to that new entity. A new corp entity costs 200 dollars. You can swing that, right? (The legal action vis a vis the copyright recovery takes considerably more) --------------------------------------------------------------- (1st method, for those who have not transferred their copyrights) (Linux, most OSS projects, those who ignored how RMS set things up and thought it was for no reason) --------------------------------------------------------------- > However, nonexclusive licenses are revocable (meaning the copyright > owner can revoke the license at any time) in the absence of > consideration. > https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/creating-written-contract-transfer-or-license-rights-under-copyright > [...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases > code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will. > --David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School: > 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 > https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/013148787 > ("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent > consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the > license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a > nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. > Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, > 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d > 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003). > https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1592&context=faculty_scholarship > For the same reason, a licensee's commitment to use offered software in > a particular way cannot constitute consideration. Because the licensee > has no right prior to the license to use the software in any way, a > grant of only limited uses of it is merely a gift. The fact that the > giver could have been even more generous by granting use of the > software with no restrictions does not alter this conclusion. It is > still the case that the licensee has not given up anything. Only if the > licensee gives up some right, says contract law, will there be valid > consideration. --------------------------------------------------------------- (2nd method, Statutory) (For those who transferred their copyrights, and are now contending with a hostile takeover*) (*this happens all the time with corps and foundations, you didn't expect it to happen to you?) --------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally if you dislike that method and prefer a different method explicitly stated by Congress: By statutory law, an author can recover any copyrights signed away after (+-)30 years (US Copyright act). The design of a program etc is a copyrightable aspect. RMS fixed this in form 30 years ago. > https://www.copyright.gov/docs/203.html > Termination of Transfers and Licenses Under 17 U.S.C. ยง203 > > Section 203 of the Copyright Act permits authors (or, if the authors > are not alive, their surviving spouses, children or grandchildren, or > executors, administrators, personal representatives or trustees) to > terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made > on or after January 1, 1978 when certain conditions have been met. > Notices of termination may be served no earlier than 25 years after the > execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of > publication, no earlier than 30 years after the execution of the grant > or 25 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first). > However, termination of a grant cannot be effective until 35 years > after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of > publication, no earlier than 40 years after the execution of the grant > or 35 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first).